Damage to leaf veins suppresses root foraging precision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Plants generally increase root growth in areas with high nutrients in heterogeneous soils, a phenomenon called foraging precision. The physiology of this process is not well understood, but it may involve shoot-root signaling via leaf veins. If this is true, then damage to leaf veins, but not to nearby mesophyll, would reduce plant foraging precision. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we imposed two leaf damage treatments on Plantago asiatica and Prunus jamasakura, removing either the tip of each main vein or mesophyll tissue between the veins with a 3-mm-diameter hole punch. After 30 days or 20 weeks of plant growth, we measured root biomass in the soil in response to soil nutrient concentration. RESULTS: When leaf mesophyll was damaged, root biomass of both species was greater in nutrient-rich patches than in nutrient-poor patches. However, when leaf veins were damaged, root biomass was similar between patches. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the importance of shoot-root signaling in plants, emphasizing that physiological processes are not necessarily restricted to single organs. The idea that herbivores that damage leaf veins may affect a plant's ability to selectively forage in high-nutrient patches is novel, with implications for natural and managed systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".