Functional relationship between leaf/stem pseudobulb size and photosynthetic pathway in the Orchidaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water storage has been commonly cited as an important function of orchid pseudobulbs, and it is reasonable to assume that orchids which utilize crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) photosynthesis have larger pseudobulbs than those of C3 orchid taxa, because these foliar (or stem) structures may reflect another type of succulent tissue in CAM plants. On the other hand, it is equally plausible that C3 orchids have larger pseudobulbs, as they lack succulent tissue, as well as the water-conservative CAM pathway. The goal of this study was to compare pseudobulb size in over 100 living orchid species growing at the Missouri Botanical Garden by measurement. Pseudobulb volumes of C3 species did not differ from those of species with CAM photosynthesis in a family-wide comparison of all sampled species, as well as in comparisons of taxa with these two photosynthetic pathways among three subtribes and within one genus. The results did not support a functional relationship between pseudobulb volume and photosynthetic pathway in the Orchidaceae. Pseudobulbs are equally important structures in C3 and CAM orchid taxa, and may function similarly in water, carbohydrates, and (or) essential elements storage in the two groups of orchids. This study lays a foundation for further research into pseudobulb evolution in orchids.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".