Glyphosate-Dependent Inhibition of Photosynthesis in Willow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the physiological mechanisms involved in the deleterious effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide (Factor® 540) on photosynthesis and related physiological processes of willow (Salix miyabeana cultivar SX64) plants. Sixty-day-old plants grown under greenhouse conditions were sprayed with different rates (0, 1.4, 2.1 and 2.8 kg a.e ha-1) of the commercial glyphosate formulated salt Factor® 540. Evaluations were performed at 0, 6, 24, 48 and 72 h after herbicide exposure. We established that the herbicide decreases chlorophyll, carotenoid and plastoquinone contents, and promotes changes in the photosynthetic apparatus leading to decreased photochemistry which results in peroxide (H2O2) accumulation. H2O2 accumulation triggers proline production which can be associated with oxidative protection, NADP+ recovery and shikimate pathway stimulation. Ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) appeared to be the main peroxidases involved in the H2O2 scavenging. In addition to promoting decreases of the activity of the antioxidant enzymes, the herbicide induced decreases in ascorbate pool. For the first time, a glyphosate-based herbicide mode of action interconnecting its effects on shikimate pathway, photosynthetic process and oxidative events in plants is presented.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".