MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1658318326 · doi:10.1139/b11-072

Reproductive phenology of the Caribbean cactus <i>Harrisia portoricensis</i>: rainfall and temperature associations

2011· article· en· W1658318326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julissa Rojas‐Sandoval, Elvia Meléndez‐Ackerman

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhenologyBiologyCactusThreatened speciesEcologyReproductive successHabitatDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenological patterns often influence the extent of reproductive success of plants as well the interaction among species. In this study, we evaluated the association of local climatic factors and plant size with the reproductive phenology of the threatened cactus Harrisia portoricensis in the Caribbean dry forest of Mona Island. Analyses of phenological data gathered monthly in 572 plants over 2 years concluded that for this species, reproductive activity is continuous throughout the year and reproductive output is positively correlated with plant size. Bud production in H. portoricensis was positively associated with temporal changes in monthly mean and minimum temperatures, while flower production was positively associated with total monthly rainfall. When compared with other columnar cacti species, the combined phenological responses to temperature and rainfall in H. portoricensis represent a different strategy. We hypothesize that contrasting phenological responses among columnar cacti may stem from site-specific differences in the degree of intra-annual rainfall or temperature variability. If that is the case, then monitoring reproductive responses of cacti to expected changes in climate at a global scale would require gathering phenological data for this taxon across different geographic regions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207