Anatomical Characteristics of Sunlight-induced Bark (Periderm) Coverages on Columnar Cacti of Central Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than twenty-three species of tall, long-lived columnar cacti from a large variety of locations within the Americas show sunlight-induced periderm development on their stems. Periderm coverages lead to cactus morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to determine if periderm coverage patterns and anatomical characteristics of periderm formation differ among five cactus species located at a single site. Periderm coverages, patterns of periderm coverages and histological changes during the periderm formation process were determined for five native species of tall, long-lived columnar cacti in the Tehuacán Valley of Puebla, Mexico during May to June 2019. Periderm coverages and patterns of periderm on cactus surface varied among the species. On surfaces, some species had periderm form at crests initially, while one species had initial periderm form where troughs join. All species had the same internal tissues but the characteristics of these tissues varied among species. In response to periderm formation, one species retained its cuticle while one species retained its hypodermis intact and another produced cork cells inside the hypodermis. Overall, the histological changes that result from periderm formation were specific for each species and no pair of species showed the same responses to periderm formation. In conjunction with data from species from South America, eight distinct scenarios of histological manifestations were documented. Although, each of the five cactus species were in the same location and received the same amount of sunlight exposures, each species showed unique periderm coverages on surfaces, unique anatomical characteristics and unique anatomical responses. Thus, location was not the primary determinant of responses.
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 | 0.001 | 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".