MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenotypic selection on leaf ecophysiological traits in <i>Helianthus</i>

2009· article· en· W2144477954 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa A. Donovan, Fulco Ludwig, David M. Rosenthal, Loren H. Rieseberg, Susan A. Dudley

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUtah State UniversityNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyHelianthusHybridHabitatSelection (genetic algorithm)BotanyAgronomyEcologySunflower

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitats that differ in soil resource availability are expected to differ for selection on resource-related plant traits. Here, we examined spatial and temporal variation in phenotypic selection on leaf ecophysiological traits for 10 Helianthus populations, including two species of hybrid origin, Helianthus anomalus and Helianthus deserticola, and artificial hybrids of their ancestral parents. Leaf traits assessed were leaf size, succulence, nitrogen (N) concentration and water-use efficiency (WUE). Biomass and leaf traits of artificial hybrids indicate that the actively moving dune habitat of H. anomalus was more growth limiting, with lower N availability but higher relative water availability than the stabilized dune habitat of H. deserticola. Habitats differed for direct selection on leaf N and WUE, but not size or succulence, for the artificial hybrids. However, within the H. anomalus habitat, direct selection on WUE also differed among populations. Across years, direct selection on leaf traits did not differ. Leaf N was the only trait for which direct selection differed between habitats but not within the H. anomalus habitat, suggesting that nutrient limitation is an important selective force driving adaptation of H. anomalus to the active dune habitat.

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 score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations65
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207