MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123714724 · doi:10.1093/aobpla/plu066

When Michaelis and Menten met Holling: towards a mechanistic theory of plant nutrient foraging behaviour

2014· article· en· W2123714724 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon G. McNickle, Joel S. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAoB Plants · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingOptimal foraging theoryNutrientBiologyFunctional responseEcologyRoot (linguistics)Biological system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants are adept at assessing and responding to nutrients in soil, and generally proliferate roots into nutrient-rich patches. An analogy between this growth response and animal foraging movement is often drawn, but because of differences between plants and animals it has not always been clear how to directly apply existing foraging theory to plants. Here we suggest one way to unite pre-existing ideas in plant nutrient uptake with foraging theory. First, we show that the Michaelis-Menten equation used by botanists and the Holling disc equation used by zoologists are actually just rearrangements of the same functional response. This mathematical unity permits the translation of existing knowledge about the nutrient uptake physiology of plants into the language of foraging behaviour, and as a result gives botanists direct access to foraging theory. Second, we developed a model of root foraging precision based on the Holling disc equation and the marginal value theorem, and parameterize it from the literature. The model predicts (i) generally plants should invest in higher quality patches compared to lower quality patches, and as patch background-contrast increases; (ii) low encounter rates between roots and nutrients result in high root foraging precision; and (iii) low handling times for nutrients should result in high root foraging precision. The available data qualitatively support these predictions. Third, to parameterize the model above we undertook a review of the literature. From that review we obtained parameter estimates for nitrate and/or ammonium uptake for 45 plant species from 38 studies. We observe that the parameters ranged over six orders of magnitude, there was no trade-off in foraging ability for nitrate versus ammonium: plants that were efficient foragers for one form of nitrogen were efficient foragers for the other, and there was also no phylogenetic signal in the parameter estimates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAoB PlantsSame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207