MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948998118 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2018-0241

Stomatal opening and growth in tomato seedlings treated with different proportions of red and blue light

2019· article· en· W2948998118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junwei Yang, Tingting Liang, Lu Liu, Tonghua Pan, Zhirong Zou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotosynthesisStomatal conductanceHorticultureBlue lightLight intensityDarknessDry weightChloroplastBotanyBiologyStomatal densityChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stomatal opening/closure plays a key role in balancing a plant’s need to conserve water, while still allowing for the exchange of photosynthetic and respiratory gasses with the atmosphere. Stomatal opening/closure can be induced by differences in light quality but a detailed knowledge of the role of light in stomatal regulation in tomato is limited. In this study, we evaluated red and blue light-dependent stomatal opening processes in tomato seedlings and explored the mechanisms involved using different light-quality treatments. After 10 h of darkness, tomato seedlings were subjected to the following five treatments: monochromatic red light (R), 33% blue (2R1B), 50% blue (1R1B), 67% blue (1R2B), and monochromatic blue light (B) at 200 μmol m −2 s −1 light intensity. The highest stomatal conductance recorded were for 1R1B. Stomatal aperture under 1R1B showed a 92.8% increase after 15 min and a 28.6% increase after 30 min compared with under R alone. Meanwhile, the study shows that the expressions of the plasma membrane H + -ATPase in the leaf were regulated by different proportions of blue light. The results show that the expressions of HA1 and HA4 increased under 1R1B and 1R2B after 15 min of exposure compared with under R alone. Under 1R1B, our results also show net photosynthesis increased compared with R and B after longer treatments, which may be related to chloroplast ultrastructure, and leaf dry weight increased compared with under 1R2B or B alone, but there were no differences under the R and 2R1B light treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207