MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1771595436 · doi:10.1139/b11-069

Dung longevity influences the fate of endozoochorically dispersed seeds in forest ecosystems

2011· article· en· W1771595436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bogdan Jaroszewicz, Ewa Pirożnikow

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLongevityGerminationSeed dispersalSeedlingDeciduousBotanyShootEcologyAgronomyBiological dispersal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies show large discrepancies between the potential (studied in the greenhouse) and realized (studied in the field) effects of endozoochory. The influence of environmental conditions on the fate of endozoochorically dispersed seeds and subsequent plant establishment is still not well understood. We addressed this issue by studying the viable seed content of the dung of European bison ( Bison bonasus L.) by means of seedling germination in the greenhouse and in two forest habitats in Białowieża Primeval Forest. The number of seedlings and the number of plant species that emerged from 1 L of feces were positively correlated with dung longevity. Generative shoots were produced by plants only in coniferous forest. Their number was positively correlated with dung longevity and with light availability. Germination of seeds from bison feces was higher in coniferous forest than in deciduous forest but did not differ between open- and closed-canopy plots within the same habitat. We conclude that (i) seed germination and plant establishment after endozoochorous dispersal is influenced by dung longevity; (ii) the number of generative shoots produced by endozoochorously dispersed plants is influenced by dung longevity and light availability; (iii) seeds of some plant species, present in dung, stay viable for at least 3 years.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207