MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175154147 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2013-0147

The influence of water availability and defoliation on extrafloral nectar secretion in quaking aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>)

2013· article· en· W2175154147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathon R. Newman, Diane Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySugarHerbivoreSalicaceaeNectarBotanyWater stressAgronomyHorticultureWoody plantPollenFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, water stress has led to widespread growth declines and dieback of several North American tree species. In addition to its direct effects on tree physiology, water stress may compromise anti-herbivore defenses. We tested whether extrafloral (EF) sugar secretion rate in Populus tremuloides Michx. (quaking aspen) increases in response to defoliation and whether water stress impairs constitutive and inducible EF sugar secretion. We subjected P. tremuloides ramets of four genotypes to water restriction and defoliation in a factorial design and measured EF sugar secretion rates 2, 4, and 6 days after defoliation. The sugar secretion rate of defoliated ramets was significantly higher than that of undefoliated ramets 6 days after defoliation. Low water availability reduced the sugar secretion rate of one of the four aspen genotypes but did not prevent induction. Populus tremuloides genotypes secreted EF sugar at different average rates, suggesting genetic variation for this trait. The results indicate that EF nectar secretion is inducible in P. tremuloides, which could increase the effectiveness of indirect defense following herbivory. Genotypic differences in the response of P. tremuloides to water stress suggest that some clonal stands may be at a disadvantage when faced with compound stresses of drought and herbivory.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207