MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038733515 · doi:10.1139/b03-086

Germination response of dimorphic seeds of two halophyte species to environmentally controlled and natural conditions

2003· article· en· W2038733515 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christy T. Carter, Irwin A. Ungar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationHalophyteBiologyDormancySeed dormancyBotanyAtriplexSalinityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine whether or not tolerance limits at the germination stage of development and annual germination patterns affect plant distribution in an inland salt marsh, we assessed germination of dimorphic seeds for Atriplex prostrata Boucher ex DC. and Salicornia europaea L. under field and laboratory conditions. Statistically significant differences were found in germination across marsh zones for both species in the field. However, germination percentages for small seeds of A. prostrata and S. europaea were above 50% and 75%, respectively, across all zones for seeds placed on the surface. For large seeds of each species placed on the surface, germination was above 90% across all zones. Small seeds for both species had primary dormancy, a light requirement for germination, and appeared to exhibit dormancy cycling. Large seeds of A. prostrata were nondormant from December through March, whereas large seeds of S. europaea were nondormant when produced. Persistent seed banks were most likely to be formed from small seeds of both species. Seeds typically germinate in the spring when salinity across the marsh is sufficiently low for seeds to germinate in all zones, indicating that the germination stage of development does not effect the spatial distribution of A. prostrata or S. europaea on the marsh.Key words: Atriplex prostrata, seed dormancy and germination, halophyte, Salicornia europaea, seed dimorphism, salt marsh zonation.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
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

Citations54
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207