MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intraclonal variation in defence substances and palatability: a study on <i>Carex</i> and lemmings

2004· article· en· W2111342008 on OpenAlexaff
Kari Anne Bråthen, Jep Agrell, Dominique Berteaux, Ingibjörg S. Jónsdóttir

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarexBiologyHerbivorePalatabilityCyperaceaeBotanyNutrientStolonEcologyPoaceaeFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clonal sedges consist of integrated ramets at different development stages. Many of these sedges are important food for herbivores, yet differences in herbivore preferences and defence allocation between ramet development stages have not previously been evaluated. In this study we investigated intraclonal ramet variation in level of plant defence and nutrient compounds and intraclonal ramet preferences by lemmings ( Lemmus trimucronatus ) in field samples of a rhizomatous sedge ( Carex stans ). Plant defence was measured as the level of proteinase inhibitor activity (PIA) and the ratio of PIA to soluble plant proteins (SPP), whereas plant nutrients were measured as the level of soluble plant sugars (SPS) and SPP. Flowering ramets generally had a higher content of defence compared to vegetative ramets, which is consistent with the optimal defence theory predicting that defence compounds are allocated to the ramet stage of the highest fitness value. Compared to vegetative ramets, the flowering ramets had a lower content of SPP and a higher content of SPS. The lemmings showed preference differences between the ramet development stages, and to a large extent the ramet content of defence compounds and nutrient compounds covaried with these preferences in the predicted way. This study shows that defence allocation between ramet development stages of the clonal sedge Carex conforms to predictions of the optimal defence theory.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207