Seed size effects and competitive ability in <i>Thlaspi arvense</i> L. (Brassicaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of seed size on plant size and competitive ability of Thlaspi arvense L. grown with and without intraspecific competition under contrasting soil fertility regimes. For solitary plants from each of four half-sibship families, seed mass was positively correlated with percentage germination, cotyledon size, and plant biomass after 15 d of growth, but differences in plant biomass largely disappeared at later dates. Small and large seeds of a single maternal family were sown in uniform or mixed arrangements of seed size classes (small:large; 100%:0%; 75%:25%; 50%:50%; 25%:75%; 0%:100%) at each of two densities (8 or 16 seeds·pot–1) under low and high soil nutrient regimes. In mixtures at low density under low soil fertility, plants from small seeds had significantly lower relative yields than expected. At high density, under either low or high nutrient conditions, plants from large seeds had significantly greater relative yields than expected. Hence, under most conditions, size inequalities between plants from seeds of different size resulted in a relative competitive advantage for plants from large seeds. The duration and extent of differences in plant size arising from T. arvense seeds of contrasting size depends on maternal genetic differences, intensity of intraspecific competition, and soil fertility.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".