Response of alfalfa and sugar beet to field dodder (<i>Cuscuta campestris</i> Yunck.) parasitism: a physiological and anatomical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physiological and anatomical impact of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) on alfalfa and sugar beet was examined under controlled conditions. The following parameters were checked: physiological — content of pigments (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids) and mineral nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and percent of organic and mineral nutrients; and anatomical — thickness of the epidermis and cortex, diameter of the stem and central cylinder of alfalfa plants, diameter of tracheids and phloem cells, area of xylem and phloem, and hydraulic conductance of petiole bundles in petiole vascular bundles of sugar beet plants. Leaf parameters were also measured on both host plants: thickness of upper and underside leaf epidermis, thickness of palisade, spongy and mesophyll tissue, and diameter of vascular bundle cells. Pigments content and anatomical parameters were measured 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 d after infestation (DAI), while mineral nutrient contents were determined 20 and 40 DAI. Field dodder caused a significant reduction in pigments content in infested alfalfa (15%–68%) and sugar beet plants (1%–54%). The results obtained in this study confirmed that this parasitic flowering plant has a strong effect on most anatomical parameters of the stem and leaf of alfalfa and leaf and petiole of sugar beet. Also, it was revealed that field dodder increased the contents of N, P2O5, K2O, and organic nutrients in infested alfalfa plants, while infested sugar beet plants had higher contents of N and organic nutrients compared with non-infested plants.
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".