Comparison of morphological features of fruits and seeds for identifying two taxonomic varieties of Spinacia oleracea L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two taxonomic varieties of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), the spiny variety [S. oleracea var. spinosa (Moench)] and the spineless variety [S. oleracea var. inermis (Moench) Peterm.], based on the spines of spinach fruits. Between the two varieties, there are obvious differences in the leathery fruit coat but no significant differences in the macro-morphological appearance of seeds. Differences between the two varieties are hard to see without the fruit coat, which makes seed purity analysis difficult. In this study, the morphological structures of fruits and seeds from 31 spinach cultivars were compared. The results showed that there were significant differences in the macro-morphology of spinach fruit in terms of fruit shapes and the presence of spines, but no significant differences in the micro-morphology of the fruit surface under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) between the spineless and spiny varieties. In addition, there were no clear and stable differences between the two varieties in seed macro-morphology based on stereomicroscopy, or in the internal seed structure based on micro-computed tomography imaging. However, significant differences in seed micro-morphology could be observed under SEM, particularly for the surface reticulation of the seed coat, such as the depth of interspaces, sidewall angle, and the bottoms of interspaces. The differences in seed micro-morphology allowed for clear discrimination between the two varieties. These results provide morphological evidence for distinguishing fruits and seeds between the two spinach taxonomic varieties, and these similarities and differences can be used to classify spinach cultivars and to analyze seed purity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".