Protein content and protease activity in senescing roots and leaves of wetland monocot species with contrasting root turnover strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perennial herbaceous monocots in Northern Ontario wetlands can be classified in two \ndistinct types of root turnover strategies: those with overwintering roots, and those with \ncomplete root mortality at the end of the growing season. All species have autumnsenescing \nleaves. The present thesis is part of investigations to understand adaptive \nadvantages of the two strategy types, focusing on nutrient remobilization from senescing \nroots. Existing data on nutrient remobilization from senescing roots is based on changes \nin element content in dying roots, and do not differentiate between remobilization and \nleaching out. Root protein content and aminopeptidase activity was assessed for gardengrown \nplants of six species from September to November, three species with autumnsenescing \nroots (Rhynchospora alba, Sagittaria latifolia, Sparganium americanum) and \nthree with overwintering roots (Carex oligosperma, Iris versicolor, Scirpus microcarpus). We hypothesized that protein degradation and protease activity would be higher in \nautumn-senescing roots. The results confirm the existence of two root turnover strategies, \nspecies with annual roots showing a decline in root protein content, while species with \nperennial roots did not show such a decrease. Leaf protein content deceased in all species \nbut C. oligosperma, known to senesce late. Total root aminopeptidase activity per fresh \nmass decreased in species with annual roots, but not in those with perennial roots. In \ncontrast to expectation, specific aminopeptidase activity did not change over time and did \nnot differ between the strategies. We conclude that nitrogen remobilization is an active \nprocess in senescing roots, and in autumn occurs only in annual roots. However, temporal \ncharacterization of root enzyme activities requires more detailed investigations
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".