Ramet spacing of <i>Elymus lanceolatus</i> (thickspike wheatgrass) in response to neighbour density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many plants exploit patchy resources through clonal foraging. Plants established in field plots were used to determine if Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus (Scribner et J.G. Smith) Gould (thickspike wheatgrass) showed a clonal foraging response to neighbour densities, as it had previously shown to patchy soil nutrients. Neighbours consisted of the rhizomatous E. lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus and the bunchgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. wawawaiensis (Scribner et Gould) J.R. Carlson et D.R. Dewey (proposed name), which are both native to the semiarid western U.S.A., and their ratios as well as total densities varied. Rather than an increase in spacing of exploratory ramets at high densities, as expected with clonal foraging, there was a decrease in spacing in both years of the experiment. Fewer target plants produced exploratory ramets at higher densities only in the second year. These reductions in exploratory clonal growth at higher neighbour densities, which were opposite to E. lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus' response to low-resource patches, occurred perhaps because soil resource levels were too low overall to support rhizome production, and this condition was more pronounced in the second year. Physical resistance from neighbour roots perhaps also reduced rhizome production. However, rhizome growth may not be beneficial in such cases, and plants may be adapted to produce exploratory rhizomes only when some high-resource patches are encountered by the clone.Key words: clonal growth, competition, Elymus lanceolatus, plasticity, resource levels, rhizomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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".