Effects of red/far-red light ratio on common lamb’s-quarters, redroot pigweed, and tomato plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red/far-red (R/FR) ratio, a signal of impending competition from neighbouring plants, fluctuates in plant canopies because of selective absorption of red light and transmission and reflection of far-red light by leaves. The differential response of a crop and associated weeds to changes in R/FR ratio could therefore influence competitive interaction among them. In a growth chamber study, growth, morphological, and allometric responses of common lamb’s-quarters (Chenopodium album L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) seedlings to changes in R/FR ratio were investigated. Low R/FR ratio increased plant height, stem length below the first node, stem diameter, leaf length, and stem/shoot weight ratio, and decreased leaf greenness, leaf/shoot weight, and leaf/stem weight ratios in some or all of these species; the species differed significantly in this regard. Total length and surface area of tomato root were greater under low R/FR ratio. R/FR ratio did not affect root parameters of lamb’s-quarters and pigweed. The observed differential response to R/FR treatment suggests that fluctuations in R/FR ratio in a canopy of mixed populations could impact interactions among these species.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".