Influence of R/FR ratio on response of maize, lettuce, and <i>Amaranthus retroflexus</i> L. to UV‐B radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant species differ significantly in their response to environmental stressors and exposure to one stressor can modify their susceptibility to another stressor, which can have significant implications for crop‐weed competition. Plants exposed to low red/far‐red light (R/FR) ratio in a canopy may experience enhanced UV‐B radiation at a subsequent growth stage. The low R/FR ratio pre‐exposure may impact the susceptibility of weeds and crops to UV‐B radiation differently. This study investigates if exposure to different R/FR ratios and the associated changes in anthocyanin concentration influence plant susceptibility to subsequent UV‐B radiation. Maize ( Zea mays L.), which contains anthocyanin in the leaf sheath, and lettuce ( Lactuca sativa L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus L. (redroot pigweed), which contain anthocyanin in the lamina, were exposed to 0.3 and 1.1 R/FR ratio in growth chambers. Following R/FR ratio treatments, anthocyanin concentration in leaf sheath (maize) or lamina (lettuce and A. retroflexus ) was measured and plants were exposed to three levels of UV‐B radiation. UV‐B exposure significantly inhibited a variety of plant growth and allometric parameters; however, R/FR ratio pre‐treatment did not influence plant response to subsequent UV‐B exposure. Pre‐exposure to low R/FR ratio reduced anthocyanin concentration by 60% in maize leaf sheath, and 31% and 100% in lettuce and A. retroflexus lamina respectively, but this influence did not affect the plant response to UV‐B radiation. These findings are significant to our understanding of the ecophysiological underpinnings of crops and weeds and their interactions in agroecosystems where both R/FR ratio and UV‐B radiation levels fluctuate.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".