Herbivory has a greater impact in shade than in sun: response of <i>Quercus pyrenaica</i> seedlings to multifactorial environmental variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many biotic and abiotic factors affect seedling establishment in woody plants. In Mediterranean environments, the major factors affecting tree regeneration are light, water, and herbivory. We investigated the response of some morphological and chemical traits of Quercus pyrenaica Willd. seedlings to simulated herbivory (hand removal of 50% of the aerial mass) and two levels of light (sun vs. shade) and water (one vs. two waterings). Water had no appreciable direct effect on morphological or chemical traits. Shaded seedlings grew less but had greater total leaf area. Simulated herbivory decreased the total leaf area, and root and aerial mass. Among the chemical characteristics, shaded seedlings had higher levels of nitrogen and lower levels of condensed tannins. In colorimetric assays of tannins, clipped seedlings had lower absorbances than did unclipped plants, and this effect was more pronounced in the sun than in the shade. Our experiment shows that light availability and herbivory affect the development and defence of Q. pyrenaica seedlings. Although Q. pyrenaica tolerated shade and simulated herbivory, both factors decreased biomass and chemical defence, which could affect the seedlings' future performance.Key words: environmental context, light, mammal herbivory, oak seedlings, Quercus pyrenaica, secondary compounds.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".