MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173678128 · doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-13-3-396.1

Relationships between fruit production and branching in monocarpic shoot modules of<i>Rhododendron lapponicum</i>

2006· article· en· W2173678128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. Staffan Karlsson, M. Andersson, Brita M. Svensson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPopulationShootAltitude (triangle)Vegetative reproductionBotanySexual reproductionSubarctic climateGrowing seasonTrade-offHorticultureEcologyDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:Rhododendron lapponicum is an ericaceous clonal dwarf shrub in which vegetative growth largely coincides with the formation of flowers and fruits. We used a flower-removal experiment and a descriptive data set to look for relationships and potential trade-offs between vegetative growth, i.e., branching, and fruit production in two contrasting subarctic populations (growing at low and high altitude). The two sites are similar in most respects and differ mainly in that the higher site has lower temperatures and a shorter growing season. We predicted that trade-offs between branching and fruit production would be less marked in a high-altitude population because at lower temperatures reproductive activities could be less resource dependent. At lower altitudes, where temperatures are higher, there would be competition for nutrients between fruiting and branching; hence, a trade-off between these two activities would be more obvious. In both populations about 80% of all new shoot modules were produced by reproductive shoot modules. We found evidence for a [linear] trade-off in the experimental study only, whereas the descriptive data set did not show any consistent indications of trade-offs between branch and fruit production. The high-altitude population showed several characteristics indicating that this population gave priority to vegetative growth over sexual reproduction. The data we present is a typical example of a case where co-variation in size and resource economy among modules masks potential trade-off patterns.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207