Tiller organization within the tussock grass <i>Schizachyrium scoparium</i>: a field assessment of competition–cooperation tradeoffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tussock grasses are characterized by a compact spatial arrangement of tillers that contributes to intense intratussock competition. This investigation was designed to directly assess the magnitude of competition among autonomous subunits of tillers within individual tussocks (i.e., integrated physiological units) to further define the mechanisms of tiller organization within this successful growth form. Experimentally constructed tussocks of Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx. Nash) were grown in the field in central Texas, USA, for 2 years with 1, 4, 8, or 12 autonomous subunits to span the range observed in naturally occurring local populations. Increasing numbers of subunits per tussock did not affect tiller density or the mean mass of individual vegetative or reproductive tillers, but it did intensify intratussock competition as evidenced by a large reduction in total tiller mass and number per subunit. This pattern of tiller organization is indicative of a division of labor within the tussock that is manifested as a tradeoff between competition among autonomous subunits and cooperation among tillers within these physiologically integrated subunits. We conclude that an increasing number of autonomous subunits associated with tussock basal expansion contributes to coarse-scale resource preemption and competitive ability, while resource sharing among tillers within subunits supports new tiller establishment and growth within this highly competitive microenvironment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".