Are resources allocated differently to symbiosis and reproduction in <i>Geranium sylvaticum</i> under different light conditions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light levels under the forest canopy are low and generally limit plant photosynthetic gains. We hypothesized that in low-light habitats, plant photosynthate acquisition is too low to allow the same magnitude of resource allocation to symbiosis and reproduction as in high-light habitats. We tested this hypothesis in a field study where Geranium sylvaticum L. plants were collected on three occasions during the growing season from shade and light habitats. In addition, we investigated the relationship between mycorrhizal colonization level and soil nutrient levels in shade and high-light habitats over a growing season. We found that light availability affects resource allocation in G. sylvaticum. Plants were intensively colonized with both arbuscular mycorrhizal and dark septate fungi, and the colonization intensities of these two different groups of fungi correlated positively with each other. In comparison with high-light meadows, mycorrhizal colonization levels were as high or higher in low-light forest habitats, but plants produced fewer flowers. This indicates that allocation to symbiosis was of higher priority than allocation to reproduction in low light. Seed size was not affected by light levels and did not correlate with fungal colonization levels. We found no relationship between fungal colonization levels and soil characteristics.Key words: arbuscular mycorrhiza, dark septate fungi, Geranium sylvaticum, reproduction, shade.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".