MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098112769 · doi:10.1139/b05-076

Habitat preference of the epiphyte<i>Tillandsia recurvata</i>(Bromeliaceae) in a semi-desert environment in Central Mexico

2005· article· en· W2098112769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rocío Bernal, Teresa Valverde, Laura Hernández-Rosas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiphyteBromeliaceaeBiologySeedlingGerminationEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tillandsia recurvata L. is an atmospheric epiphyte that occupies tree canopies in many parts of tropical America. We investigated the host preferences of this species by analyzing its occurrence on trees in a 1-ha plot in a semi-desert environment in Mexico. Additionally, we carried out germination experiments and recorded seedling survival and growth in different microsites on the three preferred host species. Our results indicate that T. recurvata occupies the crowns of certain host species (Prosopis laevigata (Humb. &amp; Bonpl. ex Willd.) M.C. Harms, Acacia bilimekii Macbr., and Cercidium praecox (Ruiz &amp; Pav.) Harms) with a higher frequency than expected by chance. In addition to species identity, tree size affected the probability of being occupied: small trees were occupied with lower frequencies and with lower densities than larger ones. On the other hand, distance to the nearest colonized tree was not related to the probability of a tree being occupied. Seed germination ranged from 0% to 7.5% and did not differ among the three host species tested. However, both seed germination and seedling growth were higher in the outer and upper parts of tree crowns. Given the patchy distribution of this epiphyte, we propose this system may be viewed as a metapopulation in which patch suitability varies according to host identity and 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 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 score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations64
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207