Effects of leaf position on reflectance, transmittance and absorption of red and far‐red light in tomato, <i>Chenopodium album</i> and <i>Amaranthus retroflexus</i> leaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Leaf optical properties can play an important role in determining the red/far‐red light ratio, a signal of impending competition, in plant canopies. Knowledge of leaf optical properties and factors affecting them is important in understanding of the impacts of red/far‐red ratio in agroecosystems. Effects of leaf position on the plant stem on their optical properties at 660 and 730 nm were studied in tomato and two weeds Chenopodium album and Amaranthus retroflexus. Leaf position on stem strongly influenced leaf optical properties. Reflectance and transmittance were generally lower for the C. album and A. retroflexus leaves at higher positions on the stem, except for reflectance at 730 nm in C. album, which did not change. Reflectance was not affected in tomato. Transmittance generally decreased for leaves at higher positions. Red/far‐red ratios of reflected (Rratio) and transmitted (Tratio) light generally decreased in all species, except Rratio in tomato, where it increased slightly at higher positions. These effects were greater in A. retroflexus compared with C. album and tomato. Changes in these ratios were partly explained by chlorophyll content and leaf mass per area. The results show that leaf position on plant stem influences leaf optical properties in tomato and two weeds and this effect differed between species. These influences and the differences among species could modify red/far‐red ratios in canopies comprising these species, which could influence their growth and inter‐plant interactions.
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".