Unravelling conflicting density‐ and distance‐dependent effects on plant reproduction using a spatially explicit approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Density‐ and distance‐dependent (DDD) mechanisms are important determinants of plant reproductive success (PRS). Different components of sequentialPRScan operate either in the same or in different directions and thus reinforce or neutralize each other, and they may also operate at different spatial scales. Thus, spatially explicit approaches are needed to detect such complexDDDeffects across multiplePRScomponents and spatial scales. To revealDDDeffects of different components of earlyPRSof the Iberian pear (Pyrus bourgaeana) sampled over three consecutive years, we used marked point pattern analysis. Our special interest is to identify conflicting processes that regulate populations at different spatial scales, for example whetherDDDon fruit initiation and on fruit development acted in opposite directions. To evaluate the significance of observed mark correlation functions based on empirical data (e.g. fruiting success), we compared them to expectations given by spatially explicit null models. DiverseDDDprocesses affected several aspects ofPRSin a variable extent over the three seasons. First, fruit initiation was higher for individuals with more neighbours at small distances (i.e. up to 40 m). However,P. bourgaeanafruit development decreased with increasing number of nearby neighbours, but these effects cancelled for overall fruit set that did not showDDDeffects. Secondly, the absolute number of fruits produced (crop sizes) by trees showed positive density dependence in 2011 and 2012 but not in 2013. Finally, the total number of seeds produced did not showDDDeffects, indicating that conflicting demographic processes can disrupt the initial spatial pattern of tree investment in reproduction. Synthesis. Understanding complex spatial effects ofDDDprocesses requires dissection of component processes to attain the complete picture since contrastingDDDprocesses may be hidden behind a single cumulative measure of reproductive success. The combination of novel and classic mark correlation functions used here constitutes a powerful spatially explicit tool that can be broadly applied to unravel conflicting mechanisms ofDDDregulating the persistence of sessile organisms at a range of spatial scales. Our findings help to explain why some authors failed to find expectedDDDofPRSand highlight the importance of detailed multiyear field studies on plant reproductive success.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".