MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047294544 · doi:10.1139/x09-079

Seed germination and seedling vigor of weevil-damaged acorns of red oak

2009· article· en· W2047294544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey A. Lombardo, Brian C. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsAcornBiologySeedlingWeevilGerminationCurculionidaeShootUnderstoryHorticultureAgronomyBotanyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acorn weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) are well-known predators of oak acorns in the eastern hardwood forest region of the United States. We examined the germination percentage of seeds, as well as the physical characteristics of seedlings, originating from both weevil-damaged and sound acorns of red oak ( Quercus rubra L.) to determine if weevil depredation impacts seedling vigor. Seeds were grown under greenhouse conditions for a period of 8 weeks. X-ray imaging was used as a nondestructive method for determining seed condition prior to germination. The combined data set showed a reduction in germination percentage from 86% for sound acorns to 26% for those damaged by weevils. Seven seedling metrics were evaluated for differences between seedlings originating from sound and those from weevil-damaged acorns. Of these metrics, the number of leaf flushes, total number of leaves, root collar diameter, shoot length, and dry mass were significantly (P < 0.05) different. Two variables, root length and shoot diameter, were not significantly different. Early allocation of resources to root establishment likely explains these findings. Because of reduced stem height and leaf number, seedlings from weevil-damaged acorns are likely to be less competitive in the forest understory than those from sound acorns.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207