MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PLASTICITY OF PHYSIOOLGY IN<i>LOBELIA</i>: TESTING FOR ADAPTATION AND CONSTRAINT

2006· article· en· W2175765825 on OpenAlex
Christina M. Caruso, Hafiz Maherali, Mark E. Sherrard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypic plasticityAdaptation (eye)PlasticityPhotosynthesisStomatal conductanceBotanyEcologyDrought tolerance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenotypic plasticity is thought to be a major mechanism allowing sessile organisms such as plants to adapt to environmental heterogeneity. However, the adaptive value of many common plastic responses has not been tested by linking these responses to fitness. Even when plasticity is adaptive, costs of plasticity, such as the energy necessary to maintain regulatory pathways for plastic responses, may constrain its evolution. We used a greenhouse experiment to test whether plastic physiological responses to soil water availability (wet vs. dry conditions) were adaptive and/or costly in the congeneric wildflowers Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Eight physiological traits related to carbon and water uptake were measured. Specific leaf area (SLA), photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), and photosynthetic capacity (Amax) responded plastically to soil water availability in L. cardinalis. Plasticity in Amax was maladaptive, plasticity in A and g(s) was adaptive, and plasticity in SLA was adaptively neutral. The nature of adaptive plasticity in L. cardinalis, however, differed from previous studies. Lobelia cardinalis plants with more conservative water use, characterized by lower g(s), did not have higher fitness under drought conditions. Instead, well-watered L. cardinalis that had higher g(s) had higher fitness. Only Amax responded plastically to drought in L. siphilitica, and this response was adaptively neutral. We detected no costs of plasticity for any physiological trait in either L. cardinalis or L. siphilitica, suggesting that the evolution of plasticity in these traits would not be constrained by costs. Physiological responses to drought in plants are presumed to be adaptive, but our data suggest that much of this plasticity can be adaptively neutral or maladaptive.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.145 · 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