Localization of the Transpiration Barrier in the Epi- and Intracuticular Waxes of Eight Plant Species: Water Transport Resistances Are Associated with Fatty Acyl Rather Than Alicyclic Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant cuticular waxes play a crucial role in limiting nonstomatal water loss. The goal of this study was to localize the transpiration barrier within the layered structure of cuticles of eight selected plant species and to put its physiological function into context with the chemical composition of the intracuticular and epicuticular wax layers. Four plant species (Tetrastigma voinierianum, Oreopanax guatemalensis, Monstera deliciosa, and Schefflera elegantissima) contained only very-long-chain fatty acid (VLCFA) derivatives such as alcohols, alkyl esters, aldehydes, and alkanes in their waxes. Even though the epicuticular and intracuticular waxes of these species had very similar compositions, only the intracuticular wax was important for the transpiration barrier. In contrast, four other species (Citrus aurantium, Euonymus japonica, Clusia flava, and Garcinia spicata) had waxes containing VLCFA derivatives, together with high percentages of alicyclic compounds (triterpenoids, steroids, or tocopherols) largely restricted to the intracuticular wax layer. In these species, both the epicuticular and intracuticular waxes contributed equally to the cuticular transpiration barrier. We conclude that the cuticular transpiration barrier is primarily formed by the intracuticular wax but that the epicuticular wax layer may also contribute to it, depending on species-specific cuticle composition. The barrier is associated mainly with VLCFA derivatives and less (if at all) with alicyclic wax constituents. The sealing properties of the epicuticular and intracuticular layers were not correlated with other characteristics, such as the absolute wax amounts and thicknesses of these layers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".