MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905140286 · doi:10.1111/ele.13191

C<sub>4</sub> anatomy can evolve via a single developmental change

2018· letter· en· W2905140286 on OpenAlexafffund
Marjorie R. Lundgren, Luke T. Dunning, Jill K. Olofsson, Jose J Moreno-Villena, Jacques W. Bouvier, Tammy L. Sage, Roxana Khoshravesh, Stefanie Sultmanis, Matt Stata, Brad S. Ripley, Maria S. Vorontsova, Guillaume Besnard, Claire Adams, Nicholas Cuff, Anthony Mapaura, Matheus E. Bianconi, Christine M. Long, Pascal‐Antoine Christin, Colin P. Osborne

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilUniversity of SheffieldSight Research UKRoyal Society
KeywordsBiologyTraitEvolutionary biologyInterspecific competitionBody planEcologyDevelopmental geneticsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract C4 photosynthesis is a complex trait that boosts productivity in warm environments. Paradoxically, it evolved independently in numerous plant lineages, despite requiring specialised leaf anatomy. The anatomical modifications underlying C4 evolution have previously been evaluated through interspecific comparisons, which capture numerous changes besides those needed for C4 functionality. Here, we quantify the anatomical changes accompanying the transition between non‐C4 and C4 phenotypes by sampling widely across the continuum of leaf anatomical traits in the grass Alloteropsis semialata. Within this species, the only trait that is shared among and specific to C4 individuals is an increase in vein density, driven specifically by minor vein development that yields multiple secondary effects facilitating C4 function. For species with the necessary anatomical preconditions, developmental proliferation of veins can therefore be sufficient to produce a functional C4 leaf anatomy, creating an evolutionary entry point to complex C4 syndromes that can become more specialised.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207