Effects of nutrient distribution pattern and aboveground competition on size of individuals in<i>Ipomoea tricolor</i>populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether the distribution pattern of soil nutrients interacted with aboveground competition to affect plant size in Ipomoea tricolor Cav. populations. Six plants per pot were grown in a factorial experiment with combinations of heterogeneous or homogeneous nutrient distribution pattern and presence or absence of aboveground competition. Plants were harvested and ranked by their aboveground biomasses. In analyses of plant sizes in all ranks simultaneously, mean plant size was significantly affected by nutrient distribution pattern, aboveground competition, and their interaction. In analyses of plant sizes of each rank, aboveground competition affected plant size, which was found in all ranks. Nutrient distribution pattern affected plant size in the higher ranks, but not in the lowest rank. Selective root placement into nutrient-rich patches under heterogeneous conditions was observed. Our results suggest that the magnitude of the effect of nutrient distribution pattern on plant size changed among ranks owing to changes in aboveground competition and size-dependent growth rate. Size-dependent growth rate could explain the significant effect of nutrient distribution pattern independent of the effect of aboveground competition. Nutrient distribution pattern would then interact with aboveground competition and consequently affect size structure in a population.
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 | 0.001 | 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".