MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2377795212

Study on photosynthetic response of two Melilotus species

2013· article· en· W2377795212 on OpenAlexaff
JI Ming-fe

Bibliographic record

VenueGuangdong nongye kexue · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelilotusPhotosynthesisCompensation pointBotanyOfficinalisBiologyHorticultureLight intensityWater-use efficiencyPhotosynthetic capacityTranspirationPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our present study, the light curve of Melilotus albus and Melilotus officinalis were measured, and parameters of photosynthesis were simulated by non-rectangle hyperbolae function. Our results showed that:(1) M.officinalis had high maximum net photosynthetic rate(25.94 μmol/m2·s), light saturation point(560.7 μmol/m2·s) and also light compensation point:(27.7 μmol/m2·s).(2) M. albus exhibited higher photo use efficiency under 600 μmol/m2·s attributing to the higher QE(0.075), when the light intensity was 600 μmol/m2·s, M. officinalis also exhibited higher maximum photosynthetic rate.(3) Both gs and Tr showed significant influence on the photo-response curve, however, the sharply increasing in Tr would result from the lower WUE in M. officinalis. In a word, our results revealed that there existed the trade-off relationship between Amax and WUE for both species, e.g. M. officinalis showed higher Amax than M.albus, while M. albus had higher WUE. This may be the results of plant long-term adaptation to environment and forming their own stable survival strategy. Therefore, the more useful for Melilotus species depends on the location environmental conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGuangdong nongye kexueSame topicEnvironmental and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207