Variability in Compensatory Ability and Relative Invasive Potential in Ornamental Cleomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tolerance to herbivory is an important trait influencing invasive potential of exotic plant species. However, though many invasive plant species have been introduced as ornamentals, tolerance to herbivory has not been evaluated among cultivars of ornamental crops to assess relative invasive potential. A greenhouse study was performed to compare tolerance to simulated herbivory in five Cleome cultivars (Sparkler White, Sparkler Rose, Queen White, Queen Rose and Solo). The herbivory treatments simulated deer, rabbit and invertebrate herbivore damage by clipping the main stem, removing leaves, or punching out leaf pieces, respectively. Data were collected for flowering time, vegetative and reproductive biomass, ratio of reproductive: vegetative biomass (reproductive effort), number of flowering and vegetative shoots, ratio of number of flowering: total shoots (reproductive allocation), and number of ovules/flower. Cultivars showed different norms of tolerance ranging from under compensation to overcompensation with differences among cultivars within series. The response differed among patterns of simulated herbivory with stem clipping having the most dramatic and negative effect on plant growth and reproduction relative to whole leaf and partial leaf defoliation. The response also varied depending on cultivar and trait. For example, compensation in vegetative, but not reproductive, biomass, was observed across most cultivars after clipping. Significant interactions of herbivory treatment x cultivar were detected for total shoot number and the ratio of flowering: total shoots in the stem clipping experiment, indicating shifts in relative cultivar ranks. The implication of variation in tolerance to herbivory is discussed in relation to ornamental crop development and invasive species risk assessment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".