Inherent and Stress-Induced Responses of Fine Root Morphology and Anatomy in Commercial Grapevine Rootstocks with Contrasting Drought Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some grapevine rootstocks perform better than others during and after drought events, yet it is not clear how inherent and stress-induced differences in root morphology and anatomy along the length of fine roots are involved in these responses. Using a variety of growing conditions and plant materials, we observed significant differences in root diameter, specific root length (SRL) and root diameter distribution between two commonly used commercial grapevine rootstocks: Richter 110 (110R; drought resistant) and Millardet et de Grasset 101-14 (101-14Mgt; drought sensitive). The 110R consistently showed greater root diameters with smaller SRL and proportion of root length comprised of fine lateral roots. The 110R also exhibited significantly greater distance from tip to nearest lateral, longer white root length, and larger proportion of root length that is white under drought stress. Mapping of fine root cortical lacunae showed similar patterns between the rootstocks; mechanical failure of cortical cells was common in the maturation zone, limited near the root tip, and increased with drought stress for both genotypes; however, lacuna formed under wetter soil conditions in 110R. Results suggest that drought resistance in grapevine rootstocks is associated with thick, limitedly branched roots with a larger proportion of white-functional roots that tend to form lacuna under more mild water deficit, all of which likely favor continued resource acquisition at depth.
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".