Determinants of parasitic plant distribution: the role of host qualityThis article is one of a collection of papers based on a presentation from the<i>Stem and Shoot Fungal Pathogens and Parasitic Plants: the Values of Biological Diversity</i>session of the XXII International Union of Forestry Research Organization World Congress meeting held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, in 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasitic plants are less affected by resource constraints than other plants and most exhibit broad host tolerances, occupy large distributional ranges, and produce high numbers of propagules. Yet, parasitic plants are characteristically rare in undisturbed habitats, and patterns of distribution within host populations are often highly nonuniform. Previous work on root and shoot parasites has identified strict germination requirements for many species but, while explaining host ranges and site–microsite preferences for particular species, this cannot account for the highly clumped spatial structure of many parasitic plant populations. Other research has examined the role of seed vectors, but in most systems studied, dispersers are not limiting and their dietary breadth, substrate use, habitat preferences, and distributional ranges exceed the extent of the parasitic plant. Here, I propose the “host-quality hypothesis,” suggesting that variation in the quality of potential hosts can account for nonrandom occurrence patterns of parasitic plants in many systems. “Quality” can relate to access to water, nutrients, or other resources that are generally limiting to hosts, whereby parasites are more likely to establish and survive on hosts with greater access (i.e., higher quality from the parasite’s perspective). Rather than supplanting germination requirements operating at the individual host plant scale or disperser behaviour operating at the landscape scale, this resource-based hypothesis applies at stand and population scales, explaining why some individuals within a stand or population are infected, while other apparently similar hosts are not susceptible. This hypothesis is explored using case studies on root and shoot hemiparasites, and is consistent with a diverse array of findings from a range of temperate and arid systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".