Mechanisms by which basal branches suppress axillary bud outgrowth in pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether the strong inhibitory influences of basal branches on axillary bud outgrowth seen in Trifolium repens L. similarly occur in Pisum sativum L. Mechanisms by which basal branches in P. sativum suppress bud outgrowth were assessed using treatment combinations of main stem decapitation and excision, girdling, and (or) disbudding of basal branches. The combination of decapitation with basal branch excision provided a new avenue for the investigation of correlative suppression of bud outgrowth. The results revealed a dual suppressive action of basal branch buds: girdling of basal branches confirmed they act via export of an inhibitory influence, but also demonstrated, for the first time in P. sativum, their role as competitive sinks for bud outgrowth stimulus. Although all of the axillary buds on the main stem had similar intrinsic potential for outgrowth, sensitivity to these suppressive influences varied with position on the stem. This suppressive influence of basal branches was, like apical dominance, a major influence on the regulation of bud outgrowth. The finding in P. sativum that basal branches suppress bud outgrowth via their action as competitive sinks for an outgrowth stimulus, as they do in nodally rooting clonal herbs, suggests further investigation of this process is warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".