Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Using a sample of 24 common deciduous angiosperm trees of the Eastern Deciduous Forest region of North America, we tested the hypothesis that leaf size variation across species can be interpreted in terms of a trade‐off between individual leaf mass and the number of leaves produced. The true nature of a resource allocation trade‐off is detectable only if variation in the total amount of growth is accounted for. We controlled for this effect by measuring all of the components of annual growth associated with leaf production at the individual terminal shoot level. Hence, number of leaves produced was expressed as ‘leafing intensity’, i.e. the number of leaves produced by newly emerged (current year's) shoots, divided by the total volume of these shoots. Ninety per cent ( r 2 = 0.90) of the variation in mean individual leaf mass across species, spanning two orders of magnitude, could be accounted for by proportional variation in mean leafing intensity, i.e. representing an isometric trade‐off, with a slope for log‐transformed data that did not deviate significantly from −1.0. We suggest that this isometric relationship may represent a generalized trade‐off strategy for leaf deployment at the shoot level within temperate deciduous woody species. Following traditional interpretations, adaptation here may involve a fitness benefit associated with a particular leaf size. The present results also suggest an alternative, i.e. selection may instead favour high leafing intensity, with small leaf mass resulting not as a direct adaptation, but simply as a trade‐off. According to this ‘leafing intensity premium’ hypothesis, the fitness benefits of higher leafing intensity are associated primarily with the fitness benefits of a larger pool of lateral meristems, because each leaf is usually associated with an axillary bud. This may in turn provide greater facility for wide phenotypic plasticity in the allocation of these meristems to vegetative vs. reproductive functions. This represents a plausible hypothesis, we suggest, in accounting for why most woody deciduous angiosperms, even some of the largest/tallest ones, have relatively small leaves.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".