Caloric restriction‐mediated reproductive lifespan extension across multiple strains of the clonal aquatic plant <i>Lemna turionifera</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifespan extension due to caloric restriction (CR) is a well‐established aspect of animal senescence that has been observed in many taxa. Contrastingly, there is much less evidence in plants, even though it is straightforward to manipulate CR by restricting photosynthesis through reduction in light intensity. One of the few studies to report CR‐mediated plant lifespan extension investigated reproductive lifespan in a single strain of the duckweed Lemna minor , a tiny, floating, aquatic plant. Here, with an aim of beginning to test the generality of this phenomenon in plants, we considered a congeneric species, L. turionifera , and examined CR‐mediated lifespan extension in eight strains collected from Alberta, Canada. We grew plants in the lab under axenic conditions, and manipulated light intensity (and hence, putatively, CR) with neutral density filters. Plants that grew under dimmer conditions had longer reproductive lifespans, on average, than those that grew under brighter conditions, consistent with CR‐mediated lifespan extension. However, this came at the expense of a reduction in the capacity to contribute to population growth: plants in dimmer conditions produced about the same total offspring spread across their longer lifespans, leading to a reduced intrinsic rate of increase, measured at the level of the individual. Expanding the taxonomic scope of studies on CR‐mediated lifespan extension – especially in plants – remains an important goal in senescence research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".