MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989926152 · doi:10.1139/b07-034

Sex allocation in <i>Carex</i> (Cyperaceae): effects of light, water, and nutrients

2007· article· en· W1989926152 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert I. Bertin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSherman Fairchild Foundation
KeywordsPlant reproductive morphologyCarexCyperaceaeBiologySex allocationNutrientAnemophilyDioecyEcologyPollenEvolutionary biologyPollinationGeneticsPollinatorOffspring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sedges of the genus Carex L. are mostly wind-pollinated, self-compatible, monoecious herbs in which female flowers are receptive before pollen is released (protogyny). One hypothesis was examined for the adaptive importance of the monoecious sexual system, namely that having two flower types permits flexibility in allocation of resources to male and female reproductive functions in the face of changing environmental conditions. Fourteen greenhouse experiments were conducted on a total of six Carex species in which I manipulated one or more of three environmental variables: nutrients, water, and light. These variables had small effects on the proportion of female flowers, though the effects were significant for at least one variable in 8 of the 14 experiments. High nutrient and light levels were generally associated with increased femaleness, while high water levels were associated with increased maleness. Increased female allocation in response to enhanced resource availability has been demonstrated in many species and is thought to reflect the greater potential fitness gains via the female function than via the male function when resources are plentiful. The opposite effects of water are anomalous and contrary to results in the literature. Because the effects of environmental manipulations on sex allocation are modest, the evolution and maintenance of monoecy in sedges probably reflect advantages other than flexible sex expression, at least in part. Selection for avoidance of self-pollination may have been particularly important in favoring the combination of protogyny and monoecy in Carex.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.183
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207