MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A test of simultaneous resource and pollen limitation in <i>Stylidium armeria</i>

2008· article· en· W1982541738 on OpenAlexaff
Rowan H. Brookes, Linley K. Jesson, Martin Burd

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersParks Victoria
KeywordsPollenPollinationBiologyAgronomyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tests the Haig-Westoby model, which predicts that seed output will be limited simultaneously by pollen and resources when plants optimally distribute their reproductive investment. The test was conducted over 2 yr using Stylidium armeria in a factorial design that fully crossed three pollination levels (small stigmatic loads, open pollination, and supplementation of natural loads) with three levels of resource availability (reduction through partial defoliation, unmanipulated resource conditions, and supplementation through nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) addition). There was no evidence of pollen limitation from supplemental pollination; however, pollen reductions (to about half the normal mean stigmatic loads) sharply reduced seed output. There was no evidence of resource limitation, in that NPK addition did not, by itself, significantly elevate seed output in either year of the study, while resource reduction by defoliation lowered seed output in the second year. Simultaneous addition of both pollen and resources strongly and significantly increased seed production. These results match the direction of effects predicted by the Haig-Westoby model, and suggest that S. armeria plants at our site are at or near an equilibrium of joint limitation of seed production by pollen capture and resource availability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207