Stomatal Density and Calcium Concentration of Six Snap Bean Cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stomatal density of pods and leaves were determined for six commercial snap bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L. `Evergreen', `Hystyle', Labrador', `Tenderlake', `Top Crop', and `Venture') grown at three planting dates, in an attempt to find morphological traits that could be related to cultivar differences in pod Ca concentration. Snap beans were planted three times at ≈1-week intervals beginning 15 June 1995, and harvested 59 to 62 days after planting. Stomatal counts were performed using a microscope linked to a video camera, and Ca concentration determinations were made using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Calcium concentration and stomatal density of leaf tissue was higher than that of pods. Cultivar differences for pod Ca concentration ( P = 0.001) and stomatal density ( P = 0.001) were observed although cultivars with higher pod stomatal density did not necessarily result in higher pod Ca concentration. Calcium concentration and stomatal density for leaves did not differ among cultivars. Stomatal density and Ca concentration of pods were positively correlated ( R 2 = 0.37), while pod maturity was negatively associated to both pod Ca concentration ( R 2 = 0.93), and pod stomatal density ( R 2 = 0.99). The effect of planting dates was absent in pod Ca concentration and significant in pod stomatal density.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".