MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035578988 · doi:10.1139/b03-091

Responses to a fluctuating environment: effects of water depth on growth and biomass allocation in <i>Eleocharis cellulosa </i>Torr. (Cyperaceae)

2003· article· en· W2035578988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adrienne L. Edwards, David W. Lee, Jennifer H. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootMacrophyteBiomass (ecology)RhizomeBotanyWetlandBiologyCyperaceaeAquatic plantMarshEnvironmental scienceAgronomyEcologyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluctuating water levels, which characterize freshwater marshes of the Florida Everglades, U.S.A., constrain growth in emergent macrophytes. We studied acclimation of Eleocharis cellulosa Torr. (Cyperaceae) in mesocosms to water depths of 7 and 54 cm and to switching between these water depths. After 80 weeks at fixed depths, deepwater plants produced (i) taller, thicker, and fewer shoots; (ii) fewer ramets; (iii) less biomass; and (iv) greater shoot biomass relative to root and rhizome biomass. Despite large differences in shoot lengths between water depths, shoot heights above the water surface were similar. Emergent shoot tissues had thick secondary walls in the epidermal cells and several palisade layers beneath; submerged shoots lacked this anatomy. When shallow-water plants were transferred to deep water, shoots elongated rapidly, with younger shoots elongating more than older ones. When deepwater plants were transferred to shallow water, emergent shoots quickly died and were replaced by new shoots. Overall, plants exposed to rapid changes in water level adjusted biomass allocation patterns after 9 weeks towards those of control plants in their new environment, but deepwater plants responded more slowly than shallow-water plants. These shifts may allow E. cellulosa to produce shoots that optimize biomechanical support and aeration.Key words: biomass allocation, Eleocharis cellulosa, Everglades, gas exchange, shoot demography, wetland plants.

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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations63
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207