Is reproductive allocation in<i>Senecio vulgaris</i>plastic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several purported cases of plasticity in plant allocation patterns appear to be the effects of size and allometric growth (“apparent plasticity”). To ask whether there is true plasticity (i.e., a change in the allometric trajectory) in reproductive allocation in Senecio vulgaris L., we grew S. vulgaris plants at high and low levels of water, nutrients, and competition, and analyzed the relationship between vegetative and seed biomass. Plant size was the major determinant of reproductive output, accounting for 83% of the variation in log (seed mass). There were also significant effects of the treatments that were not due to size, accounting for an additional 9% of the variation. The treatments affected the allometric coefficient (intercept), not the allometric exponent (slope) of the relationship, reflecting a small but significant shift in the efficiency of conversion of total plant biomass into reproductive biomass. In a second experiment, we grew S. vulgaris plants at three nutrient levels and allowed all individuals to complete their life cycles. Again, nutrient level had a small but significant effect on the allometric coefficient. Plasticity in reproductive allocation exists, but is very limited. The primary effects of the environment on the reproductive output of S. vulgaris occur via plant size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".