MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060400231 · doi:10.1086/658343

Applying Behavioral-Ecological Theory to Plant Defense: Light-Dependent Movement in <i>Mimosa pudica</i> Suggests a Trade-Off between Predation Risk and Energetic Reward

2011· article· en· W2060400231 on OpenAlexaff
Evelyn L. Jensen, Lawrence M. Dill, James F. Cahill

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationHerbivoreBiologyForagingEcologyMimosa pudica

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many animal species tolerate different amounts of predation risk based on environmental conditions and the individual's own condition, often accepting greater risk when energetically stressed. We studied the sensitive plant Mimosa pudica to see whether it too accepts greater risk of predation when less light energy is available. This plant displays a defensive behavior of rapidly folding its leaves when stimulated by touch, thereby decreasing visibility to herbivores. Averting herbivory involves a trade-off because leaf closure results in a reduction in light foraging. We manipulated the light environment of individual M. pudica plants and recorded the time it took a plant to reopen its leaves following stimulation as a measure of tolerance of predation risk. As predicted by theory, avoidance behavior was sustained longer under high light conditions than under more light-limited conditions. These findings suggest this species balances the risk and reward of antiherbivore behavior in relation to current environmental conditions and that behavioral-ecological theory is a useful framework for understanding plant responses to predators.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations51
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207