MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037194362 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2012-0153

Recruitment limitation, germination of dust seeds, and early development of underground seedlings in six Pyroleae species

2013· article· en· W2037194362 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Veronika A. Johansson, Ove Eriksson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrositeGerminationSeedlingBiologyLimitingBotanyNutrientAllelopathyHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated recruitment of six mixotrophic Pyroleae species in relation to soil and adult presence. Pyroleae have dust seeds containing minimal nutrient reserves, and subterranean seedlings are mycoheterotrophic needing fungal hosts for germination and development. Germination and seedling development were studied by retrieving seed bags that had been placed within plots with adults present and at unoccupied control plots. There are two main alternatives to what limits recruitment of plants, seed limitation or microsite limitation. Results suggested that a combination of microsite and seed limitation was important for all investigated species. Microsite availability was the main limiting factor for Chimaphila umbellata (L.) W.P.C. Barton, Orthilia secunda (L.) House, and Pyrola chlorantha Sw., whereas seed availability was the main limiting factor for Pyrola minor L. For Moneses uniflora L. A. Gray and Pyrola rotundifolia L., it was not clear whether microsite or seed limitation dominated. Growth of seedlings responded positively to adult presence (O. secunda and P. minor), whereas others were negatively affected (M. uniflora and P. chlorantha). Increased levels of soil nutrients (N and P) had a negative effect on seedling growth in C. umbellata and P. chlorantha. These results provide the first evidence of the importance of microsite and seed limitation for germination and development of seedlings of Pyroleae species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207