Two arctic tundra graminoids differ in tolerance to herbivory when grown with added soil nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greater soil nutrients are thought to increase graminoid tolerance to herbivory (within-season regrowth following herbivore damage) by enabling new growth in response to defoliation, but these responses vary among graminoid species. We studied how two arctic graminoids, Eriophorum vaginatum (L.) in moist acidic tussock (MAT) tundra and Hierochloe alpina (Roem. & Schult.) in dry heath (DH) tundra, tolerate both experimental and natural herbivory when fertilized with nitrogen and phosphorus. Fertilization reduced the tolerance and recovery (regrowth in subsequent years) of defoliated Eriophorum relative to plants growing without fertilization. In contrast, fertilized Hierochloe plants regrew well following defoliation. These opposing results may be due to differential abilities of these two species to access other resources in MAT and DH when fertilized. Herbivory may be affecting access to light of Eriophorum in the more productive, closed canopy MAT, in spite of its ability to grow bigger when fertilized. Hierochloe may not face such a limitation in the more open DH community. Alternatively, the different responses between these two species could be caused by environmental differences between the two communities. Regardless, our results suggest that although high tolerance is thought to be a functional characteristic of graminoids, tolerance to herbivory varies within and between species with soil nutrient availability and thus caution must be exercised in predicting responses to herbivory within this plant growth form.
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) | 0.000 | 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".