MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intraspecific Leaf Trait Variation Across and Within Wine Grape Varieties

2022· preprint· en· W4294308189 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha C. Macklin, Rachel. O. Mariani, Emily N. Young, Rosalyn Kish, Kimberley A. Cathline, Gavin P. Robertson, Adam R. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsNiagara CollegeThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiologyIntraspecific competitionTraitSpecific leaf areaIdeotypeGrowing seasonDomesticationLeaf sizeAgronomyCropBotanyHorticultureEcologyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variability in traits forming the Leaf Economics Spectrum (LES) among and within crop species play a key role in governing agroecosystem processes. However, studies evaluating the extent, causes, and consequences of within-species variation in LES traits for some of the world’s most common crops remain limited. We quantified variation in nine leaf traits measured across 90 vines of five wine grape (Vitis vinifera) varieties at two ontogenetic stages. Grape traits covary along an intraspecific LES, in patterns similar to those documented in wild plants. Across varieties, high rates of photosynthesis (A), and leaf nitrogen (N) concentrations, are coupled with low leaf mass per area (LMA), while the opposite suite of traits defines the “resource conserving end” of this intraspecific LES in grape. Variety identity predicted of leaf physiological (A) and morphological traits (i.e., leaf area and leaf mass), while leaf chemical traits and LMA were best explained by ontogenetic stage. All varieties expressed greater resource conserving trait syndromes (i.e., higher LMA, lower N, lower Amass) later in the growing season. Traits related to leaf hydraulics, including instantaneous water-use efficiency (WUE), were unrelated to LES and other resource capture traits, and were better explained by spatial location. Our results highlight the relative contributions of genetic vs. phenotypic factors in structuring this variation and point to a key role of domestication in governing trait relationships in the world’s crops.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.192 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207