MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The adaptive significance of ontogenetic changes in physiology: a test in<i>Avena barbata</i>

2009· article· en· W2140629029 on OpenAlexafffund
Hafiz Maherali, Christina M. Caruso, Mark E. Sherrard

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsCitationTest (biology)Library scienceBiologyComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiological changes with ontogeny are common in plants. Although ontogenetic changes are hypothesized to improve plant function, their adaptive significance has rarely been tested. Here, we estimated phenotypic selection on ontogenetic change in photosynthesis (A) and stomatal conductance (g(s)) of Avena barbata. We tested whether ontogenetic changes in A and g(s) increased fitness in wet and dry soil environments. To determine whether evolution in response to this selection would be constrained, we estimated the heritability of ontogenetic change in physiology, as well as cross-environment genetic correlations. Ontogenetic change in A, but not g(s), was adaptive in the wet soil environment; plants that maintained or increased A from the prereproductive to the reproductive phase had higher fitness. In the dry soil environment, ontogenetic change in A and g(s) was adaptively neutral. We detected significant genetic variation for ontogenetic change in A and g(s), but no cross-environment genetic correlations, suggesting that the evolution of these traits would not be genetically constrained. We demonstrate that ontogenetic changes in physiological traits can increase fitness but the adaptive value of these changes varies among traits and environments.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207