MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995398207 · doi:10.1139/b04-144

Dormancy and flowering in two mariposa lilies (<i>Calochortus</i>) with contrasting distribution patterns

2004· article· en· W1995398207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael T. Miller, Geraldine A. Allen, Joseph A. Antos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDormancyBiologyPopulationPerennial plantBotanyRange (aeronautics)GerminationEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated patterns of dormancy and reproduction over time in two long-lived grassland perennial species, Calochortus lyallii Baker and Calochortus macrocarpus Dougl. Three populations of each species were monitored over 5 years near Osoyoos, British Columbia, at the northern range limit for C. lyallii and near the elevational limit for C. macrocarpus. On average, C. macrocarpus bulbs flowered less frequently but had higher fruit set and produced more seeds per capsule than C. lyallii bulbs. In C. lyallii, low fruit set was related primarily to premature abortion of buds and flowers, whereas the potentially higher seed production of C. macrocarpus was largely offset by deer herbivory. Prolonged bulb dormancy was common in both species, with up to 18% of C. lyallii and 26% of C. macro carpus bulbs dormant in a given population and year. Dormancy episodes typically lasted a single year, although episodes as long as 4 years were also recorded. In both species dormancy was synchronized across sites, implying that it was not a random occurrence within populations but a response to the same external factor(s). Population surveys involving geophytes should consider the possibility that the visible population is not necessarily indicative of actual population size, and that a population may still be extant even when no individuals are observed.Key words: Calochortus, bulb dormancy, herbivory, range limits, geophyte, population persistence.

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 score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207