MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050348735 · doi:10.1139/b02-053

Skipped reproductive cycles and extensive sporophyte abortion in the desert moss <i>Tortula inermis</i> correspond to unusual rainfall patterns

2002· article· en· W2050348735 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lloyd R. Stark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSporophyteBiologyMossBryophyteBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A phenological assessment of Tortula inermis (Brid.) Mont. populations in the Mojave Desert, Nevada, U.S.A., over a period of 4 years revealed that the sporophyte cohort initiated in early 1995 remained dormant until early 1998, by which time approximately 66% of the sporophytes had aborted. The viable sporophytes of this cohort were significantly shorter in length and had significantly less biomass than the previous cohort of sporophytes. In the intervening years 1996 and 1997, the sexual reproductive cycle was skipped altogether. The absence of sporophyte initiation in these two years was attributed to reduced winter–spring rainfall. The majority of abortive sporophytes aborted in the late embryonic and seta elongation phenophases. The 1997 and 1998 summers were characterized by unusually heavy rains. Following the heavy summer rain events of 1997, sporophyte abortion in the 1995 cohort increased from 9 to 43%, and abortive sporophytes in this cohort further increased to 66% following the summer rains of 1998. Abortive sporophyte biomass averaged 49 µg or 33% of the mean biomass of the viable sporophytes in the cohort at maturity. These data suggest that the summer rain events precipitated two waves of sporophyte abortion, possibly through heavy membrane damage associated with rapid drying and high temperatures while hydrated.Key words: sporophyte abortion, bryophyte, desert, Tortula, desiccation.

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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207