No significant relationship exists between seedling relative growth rate under nutrient limitation and potential tissue toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We asked two questions in this study: (i) is there is there a negative correlation between relative growth rate (RGR) among 19 species of herbaceous Asteraceae grown under nutrient limitation and potential tissue toxicity; and (ii) is the degree of toxicity of these species different than those measured in a previous study, in which the same species were grown under non‐limiting conditions? In the present study we grew 19 of the same species as previously in hydroponic sand culture for which the growth rate was limited by nutrient supply, and compared RGR and potential tissue toxicity due to secondary compounds. Under such conditions, RGR was reduced by 25%; specific leaf area was reduced by 32%; root : shoot ratios were increased by 320%; leaf nitrogen content was reduced by 69%; and potential toxicity was decreased by 46%. Although nutrient limitation clearly decreased both RGR and potential toxicity, we found no interspecific correlation between RGR and toxicity. We conclude that there was no detectable trade‐off between RGR and potential toxicity due to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".