A quantitative study of cotyledon positioning in conifer development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of cotyledons in angiosperm monocots and dicots is tightly constrained. But in the gymnosperm Pinaceae (pine family), which includes many of the conifers, cotyledon number (nc) can vary widely, commonly from 2 to 12. Conifer cotyledons form in whorled rings on a domed embryo geometry. We measured the diameter of embryos and counted the cotyledons to determine the radial positioning of the whorl and the circumferential spacing between cotyledons. Results were similar between Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (L.) H.Karst.), and larch (Larix × leptoeuropaea, synonymous with L. × marschlinsii Coaz), indicating a common mechanism for cotyledon positioning in conifers. Disrupting transport of the growth regulator auxin (with 1-N-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA)) led to cup-shaped embryos, indicating that whorl (ring) formation is separable from cotyledon patterning within the ring. NPA inhibits cotyledon outgrowth, but not the spacing (distance) between cotyledons. The NPA effect is direct; it does not operate indirectly on embryo size. These results support a hierarchical model for cotyledon positioning in conifers, in which a first stage (not requiring auxin transport) sets the whorl position, constraining the second stage (which requires auxin transport) to form cotyledons within this whorl. Similarly, recent studies in Arabidopsis have shown that different components of complex developmental patterns can have different transport properties; this aspect of patterning may be shared across plants.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".