Aphid fitness on 13 grass species: a test of plant defence theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth rate hypothesis, which states that fast-growing plants support more herbivores than slow-growing plants, was tested with 12 native and 1 naturalized British grasses using the grain aphid (Sitobion avenae). Five aphids were enclosed with grasses for two weeks in a growth chamber. After 2 weeks, fast-growing plants had 38 aphids, whilst slow-growing plants had 6, which supports the growth-rate hypothesis. When aphid numbers were analysed on plants according to "CSR" theory (Grime 1977, 1979), ruderals (R) had 54, competitors (C) had 18, and stress tolerators (S) had 6. This supports the predictions of CSR theory. Furthermore, aphid numbers increased significantly with grass growth rates and a mollusc palatability index, although this largely resulted from a single outlier, Poa annua. Aphid number was not affected by hairs on grasses. Finally, the effect of aphid feeding on grasses was tested. Generally, the greatest change in total and aboveground biomass of the grasses was found in the ruderals, whilst stress tolerators had the least amount of change.
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 | 0.001 | 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".