Well, I needed anyway these data to use when I analyze the results of assays of 13C. In addition, it allowed to cast a sharper eye on this story at UC Qualea. To the naked eye, it was not much. Maybe the computer it will fare better, look if there is consistency between the two markers used by UA Sanoja.
And then, well, since I spent quite some time to develop a measurement system Quick, try to return as much more than: my supervisor had the idea to use it to see if there is generally a good correlation between the area of a leaf, and the length between -node that precedes it. The ideal is that it is good enough that we have not measured the leaf area, and we can use this length instead.
Come this ...
Bon, bah it seems to stick a bit ...
Anyway, the coefficient of correlation is not terrible, 0.54 ... can do better.
Another branch?
Ah, that's better ! 0.84 ... but it is still not extraordinary.
Yet another branch ...
There is squarely cata: nothing.
the balance sheet, a bunch of twigs in which there is a correlation "bof" of 0.5, the 0.7, sometimes 0.8. And a handful of branches in which there is really nothing.
And if I look at all the branches? 0.416
Not much so, that is even closer to 0 than 1 ...
Conclusion: The statistical model that would permit to measure the lengths of internodes areas instead of leaves, shredded it. And I confirm: on reggression simple, I found an R of 40%, which means that the lengths of internodes can explain only 40% of the variability of leaf area. It is not nothing, but it is not sufficient to lead to an application.
And this reflects in fact, if I turn the study of all the extreme variations of leaf area and length of internodes which presumably mark of stunting (limit of UA and Co.) I explain nothing of the variability of leaf area using the lengths of internodes.
This means that it is not the internodes Because one is shorter than the combined sheet is small. By cons, if there is a limit of UA any accident (dead apex example, when the terminal bud, which produces the stem dies, and that's another bud who rebuke the relay) actually, we tend to find a shorter inter-node, and a smaller sheet.
But even knowing this is a return to square one: we do not distinguish clearly consistent association between length of internodes and leaf area, no basis to find out for sure the CPU.
We will therefore have difficulty in dating our leaves.
bad, it was practical: since the purpose of the experiment is to study the seasonal variation of deltaC13, we could analyze only sets of leaves formed in the year.
Here we find ourselves obliged to take a series of 10 sheets without even knowing if they were not formed during the same season or over several years ...
We will not know until afterwards, when the analysis deltaC13 have already been paid (and is not given ... 6 to 7 euros per sample).
For Virola, the balance is roughly the same: no strong correlation between length of internodes and leaf area, and lengths of internodes are not a good marker of UC.
For cons, the areas of leaves they are a good marker UA, and may allow diagnosis in the field.
was not lost everything, at least it is confirmed: we will respect our dating Virola leaves.
One of the fun in science is that we never lost anyway: we test hypotheses. That the tested hypothesis is confirmed or refuted, it has learned something anyway.
But this thing may or may not lead to an application ...
In this case, it is grated.
Well, it's no big surprise, this can be explained. If I turn the extreme variations of leaf area are likely to walk for UA
0 comments:
Post a Comment