Phenotypic plasticity of life-history characters in response to different germination timing in two annual weeds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental manipulation was conducted to test whether germination timing influences the post-germination life-history characters in Amaranthus retroflexus L. and Chenopodium glaucum L. Seeds were sown in spring, late spring, and summer. Life-history characters of both phenology and morphology were measured, and dry masses of roots, stems, leaves, and reproductive organs were determined. Life-history characters showed high plasticity in response to different sowing dates. Later germinating plants had relatively faster growth rates and smaller sizes at reproduction than earlier germinating plants. Delaying germination led to relatively earlier reproduction and a relatively greater allocation to reproduction. Much of the variation (60%) could be explained by a single axis of a principal component analysis. The attributes on this axis were similar to the CR axis of Grime's CSR model. Further, the sowing dates of these two species were aggregated on this axis such that spring germinators tended towards the competitor strategy (C), late-spring germinators tended towards a mixed competitiveruderal strategy (CR), and summer germinators tended towards a ruderal strategy (R). Different germination timing led to different life-history strategies in the established phase. This kind of phenotypic plasticity in life history results from the plant adapting to regeneration strategies of different germination timing.Key words: Amaranthus retroflexus, Chenopodium glaucum, phenotypic plasticity, life-history characters, plant strategies, germination timing.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it