Growth and competitive abilities of the federally endangered <i>Lindera melissifolia</i> and the potentially invasive <i>Brunnichia ovata</i> in varying densities, hydrologic regimes, and light availabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brunnichia ovata (Walter) Shinners is a native, perennial, woody vine with the potential to become an aggressive competitor of the federally endangered shrub Lindera melissifolia (Walt.) Blume. Our study simulated habitat disturbances to hydrologic regime and light availability that may occur naturally, or through active management practices aimed at ensuring the sustainability of L. melissifolia, and we determined the species responses to these changes. First-year plants of L. melissifolia and B. ovata were grown at varying densities, in flooding or nonflooding treatments, and receiving 100%, 47%, or 21% light availabilities. For both species, density effects, in combination with light availability and flooding regime influenced total biomass accumulation. Brunnichia ovata exhibited a high degree of plasticity with respect to biomass allocated between above- and below-ground tissues in response to flooding, whereas biomass allocation in L. melissifolia was relatively unaffected. Interspecific competition occurred primarily in nonflooding treatments. Our study highlighted the complexity of the relationship of L. melissifolia and B. ovata with regard to functional trait responses to changes in abiotic and biotic factors, and indicated that it will be necessary to consider entire plant community responses to mitigate increased competitive interactions and ensure the survival of L. melissifolia populations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".