Light and growth form interact to shape stomatal ratio among British angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In most plants, stomata are located only on the abaxial leaf surface (hypostomy), but many plants have stomata on both surfaces (amphistomy). High light and herbaceous growth form have been hypothesized to favor amphistomy, but these hypotheses have not been rigourously tested together using phylogenetic comparative methods. I leveraged a large dataset including stomatal ratio, Ellenberg light indicator value, growth form, and phylogenetic relationships for 372 species of British angiosperms. I used phylogenetic comparative methods to test how light and/or growth form influence stomatal ratio and density. High light and herbaceous growth form are correlated with amphistomy, as predicted, but they also interact; the effect of light is pronounced in therophytes (annuals) and perennial herbs, but muted in phanerophytes (shrubs and trees). Furthermore, amphistomy and stomatal density evolve together in response to light. Comparative analyses of British angiosperms reveal two major insights into physiological evolution. First, light and growth form interact to shape variation in stomatal ratio; amphistomy is common under high light, but mostly for herbs. Second, coordinated evolution of adaxial stomatal density and light tolerance indicates that amphistomy is an important adaptation to optimally balance light acquisition with gas exchange. These results advance our understanding of why stomatal ratio evolves and its potential as a functional trait for paleoecology and crop improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".