Effect of Seed Size on Seedling Growth Response to Elevated CO<sub>2</sub> in <i>Picea abies</i> and <i>Picea rubens</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several previous studies have observed that species and individuals with large seeds respond more positively to elevated CO (2) than those with small seeds. We explored the reasons for this pattern by examining the relationship between seed size and CO (2) response in Picea abies and P. rubens using growth analysis. The large seeded species (P. abies) responded more positively to elevated CO (2) than the small seeded species (P. rubens). At the intraspecific level, P. abies individuals from large seeds responded more positively to elevated CO (2) than individuals from small seeds, however, there was no significant intraspecific variation in CO (2) response in P. rubens. The greater CO (2) response of plants from large seeds was not simply the result of a larger starting capital compounded at the same rate as in plants from small seeds. Elevated CO (2) increased relative growth rate to a greater extent in individuals from large seeds. This effect appears to be related to differences in time of establishment, source to sink ratio and nutrient availability with seed size. These results are significant not only in understanding the potential effect of rising atmospheric CO (2) concentrations on plant populations, but also in understanding the factors affecting plant success at current atmospheric CO (2) levels due to the elevation of CO (2) within the litter layer that occurs at many germination sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".