Blitz527 said:
I used some different cups for my rack. Some are off white(opaque) some are clear coca cola cups and a few clear yellow ones. I have a few solid red ones too.
So what is root to shoot ratio? What should I be looking for?
this will break it down for you ,
INTRODUCTION
[SIZE=10pt]It is a standard assumption in plant ecology that plants respond to their environment in such a way as to optimize their resource use (e.g. Bloom [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]et al[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]., 1985). One expression of such an optimization is the allocation between shoots and roots in response to nutrient availability. In general, when nutrient availability increases, plants allocate relatively less to their roots, which is consistent with a resource optimiza- tion hypothesis as increasing nutrient availability means that less effort is required to acquire this resource. Exceptions to this rule, when K, Mg or Mn are limiting (Ericsson, 1995), can be recast into the resource optimization hypothesis. De®ciencies of these elements lead also to a shortage of carbohydrates, which signi®es to the plant that the allocation to light acquisition is sub-optimal. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Several models have been developed to explain the mechanisms behind the root : shoot allocation (see reviews by Wilson, 1988; A[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Ê[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]gren and WikstroÈm, 1993; Cannell and Dewar, 1994). All models are based on a carbon balance, but some additional constraints are required. Two general routes can then be followed. First, some plant property is optimized, which, in practise, always turns out to be the relative growth rate (Johnson and Thornley, 1987; Hilbert, 1990; Thornley, 1995). Secondly, a sink strength depending either on nitrogen concentration (A[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Ê [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]gren and Ingestad, 1987; Ingestad and A[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Ê[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]gren, 1991) or on carbon and nitrogen substrate concentrations (Thornley, 1972, 1995, 1998) is added. The problem with the latter group of models is that they require phenomenological formulation of plant proper- ties (nitrogen productivity, substrate utilization rates or transport rates) and, therefore, only show consistency [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]between plant properties without explaining them in terms of some underlying principle. Formulations derived by maximizing the relative growth rate give, in general, qualitatively satisfactory results but quantitative tests seem to be lacking. One reason for this is the problem of independently estimating all the necessary parameters required for testing the predictions; in particular the relationship between net assimilation rate and plant nitrogen concentration has to be speci®ed. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]In this paper, a relationship between the shoot fraction ([/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]f[/SIZE][SIZE=7pt]S[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]) and plant nitrogen concentration ([/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]c[/SIZE][SIZE=7pt]N[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]) will be derived by maximizing the relative growth rate. The problem of the arbitrariness in the relationship between assimilation rate and plant nitrogen concentration will be avoided. Instead the strong empirical, linear relationship between relative growth rate and plant nitrogen concentration (A[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Ê [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]gren and WikstroÈm, 1993) will be used to derive the assimilation rate as a function of plant nitrogen concentration. The ®nal relationship, [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]f[/SIZE][SIZE=7pt]S[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]([/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]c[/SIZE][SIZE=7pt]N[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]), will then have only one or two free parameters that will be adjusted when comparing predictions with experimental results. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]MATERIALS AND METHODS [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]For simplicity, a plant consisting of only a shoot biomass and a root biomass will be considered. The total dry mass of the plant is [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]W[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt], its nitrogen content [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]N[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt], the shoot fraction [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]f[/SIZE][SIZE=7pt]S[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt], the carbon assimilation rate per unit shoot mass [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt], and the uptake rate of nitrogen per unit root mass [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]U[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]. Due to the constancy of carbon concentration in plant biomass, dry weight increase equals carbon assimilation [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Q [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]a constant factor included in [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]. It is further assumed that respiratory losses are proportional to plant nitrogen content (Ryan [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]et al[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]., [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]* For correspondence. E-mail Goran.Agren@eom.slu.se[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Annals of Botany 92/6, [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]ã [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Annals of Botany Company 2003; all rights reserved [/SIZE]
So now I'll be pulling for two who have had shoulder work done.
Oh man i feel for the boy , my cousin had the bicep one done 8 months ago , she's back at work but little iffy , 7 months of therapy ! Theres a few in therapy who had the bicep surgery , unreal how many people in there with shoulder tears and outside of there just in the stores . i seen 2 people the other day in Wal-mart with the big ol" slings with pillows on them , yep , couldn't help but ask ,
I've been working as a Home Health Aide for 27 years, so I see stuff like that every day and I can sympathize.