MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032384025 · doi:10.1071/bt10204

Variation in morphological traits among and within populations of Austrodanthonia caespitosa (Gaudich.) H.P. Linder and four related species

2011· article· en· W2032384025 on OpenAlexaff
Cathy Waters, Gavin J. Melville, David Coates, J. M. Virgona, Andrew G. Young, R. B. Hacker

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Botany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersCharles Sturt UniversityUniverzita Karlova v Praze
KeywordsBiologyPerennial plantFecundityInflorescenceAdaptation (eye)BotanyTraitMycologyPlant ecologyGenetic variationEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The native perennial grasses Austrodanthonia spp. are widespread and of great agricultural economic importance to large areas of southern Australia. However, little is known of the adaptive genetic variation that exists within wild populations. Intra-specific genetic variation has significant implications for the restoration and management of native plant communities because different seed sources may exhibit differences in adaptation. Using two common garden studies, we measured variation in morphological traits (flowering and growth) and water-use efficiency (carbon-isotope discrimination ?) of Austrodanthonia caespitosa (Gaudich.) H.P. Linder and related species (A. bipartita, A. eriantha, A. fulva and A. setacea) and related this variation to environmental characteristics. Most variation for all species occurred among populations suggesting ecotypic variation. The significant relationship between flowering and growth characteristics of A. caespitosa and both large-scale climatic variables such as spring rainfall and sunshine hours and small-scale site characteristics such as shading provides evidence for trait-dependent adaptation at different scales. While components of fecundity such as flowering time and number of inflorescences represent important fitness traits, for other traits such as intrinsic water use there were no significant differences between populations. We discuss the implication of these results to both growth characteristics and sourcing seed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of BotanySame topicPasture and Agricultural SystemsFrench-language works237,207