Gradients in Humidity and Water Availability in Plant Tissue Culture Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture tubes are commonly used for the in vitro growth of plant tissues. Plants grown in culture tubes can vary in phenotype within the tube, with tissues nearer the surface of the medium being more hyperhydric than those nearer the cap. This is most common in unvented tubes and with medium gelled with gellan gum rather than agar. This study examined whether a gradient in humidity or water availability exists within the culture tube that might explain differences in growth related to distance from the medium. To measure humidity, microsensors were placed at three levels within tubes capped with solid or vented caps with gel medium and repeated with agar medium. Readings were compared with ambient levels outside of the tube for six weeks, under conditions of 16 hrs light:8 hrs dark each day. Humidity in the unvented tubes was mostly saturated. In contrast, humidity in the vented tubes showed a strong vertical gradient. In both vented and unvented tubes, humidity near the medium was higher than near the cap. The experiments with agar and gel gave similar results. To examine water availability, uptake into cellulose or cotton plugs was measured. Water uptake was significantly greater from gel than from agar medium, and only agar showed a significant gradient in the plugs through that time period, regardless of venting. Both the humidity gradients and water uptake differences suggest that one or both may account for differences in exposure of the tissues to water and could affect phenotype depending on the sensitivity of the species and distance of the tissue from the medium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".