Size-dependent reproductive effort in <i>Amaranthus retroflexus:</i> the influence of planting density and sowing date
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Size-dependent reproductive effort is an important component of plant fitness. The responses of reproductive effort to environmental factors in Amaranthus retroflexus L. were measured in two experiments. A wide range of selection pressures were generated by manipulating the sowing date (29 April, 23 May, 18 June, and 14 July) and planting density (13.4, 36, 121, and 441 plants·m –2 ). Allometric analysis between reproductive biomass and vegetative biomass across treatments showed that reproductive effort increased with size in response to different planting densities but decreased with size in sowing dates experiment. The allometric exponent between treatments was not influenced by planting densities but had significant variation with sowing date. Total branch length could explain most of the variation of reproductive accumulation and allocation in planting density experiments. For the plants with different sowing dates, total branch length was the main determinant of reproductive biomass, while reproductive effort mainly depended on the number of primary branches per unit stem mass. Architectural constraints with size result in size-dependent reproduction. Size-dependent reproduction in A. retroflexus was influenced by available resources and environmental conditions through the mechanisms of self-regulation of architectural traits.
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".