Plant architecture, plasticity, and adaptation strategies of two oat genotypes under different competition intensities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hypothesis that positive and negative interactions account for adaptive strategies was tested in a controlled study with two oat (Avena sativa) genotypes: 'Manotick' with erect leaves and 'Oa1316-1' with prostrate leaves. An increasing competition pattern was designed by varying the number of seeds planted in each container and the space between containers, thus creating different planting density regimes (i.e. alternative and solid treatments). RESULTS: Total biomass of individual plants tended to decrease exponentially with increasing density in both genotypes. Under high density stress, Manotick allocated more biomass to the roots and produced 50% more tillers, leading to more non-productive tillers and lower harvest index in the alternative than in the solid treatment. In contrast, Oa1316-1 allocated more biomass to panicles and stems, and less to the roots, with fewer tillers. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing density and strengthening intraspecific competition, Manotick reduced aboveground biomass allocation, leading to lower yield, while Oa1316-1 decreased allocation to the roots, but increased allocation to the panicles under an increasingly competitive environment. These adjustments were mechanically derived from negative and positive interactions, ensuring greater yield in the prostrate type. Our findings provided a novel rationale for a planting strategy based on plant type selections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".