Differentiating the effects of pot size and nutrient availability on plant biomass and allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L. Hess and H. de Kroon (2007. J. Ecol. 95: 241–251) hypothesize that apparent plant responses to neighbour presence could be artifacts of pot-size manipulations. They posit that root size increases with pot size, regardless of nutrient concentration, while plant size increases with nutrient amount in the pot. Simple manipulations of pot size do not test this hypothesis, because larger pots contain more nutrients when nutrients are applied in solution at constant rate. We tested the effects of pot size on growth and allocation in two life stages of Cakile edentula (Bigel.) Hook. subsp. edentula var. lacustris while manipulating nutrient amount and concentration. Although pot size did affect growth and allocation, the patterns were not those predicted by the Hess and de Kroon hypotheses. In several treatments, total plant mass decreased with pot size. Root mass did not increase with pot volume independently of nutrients. Root mass increased with pot volume only when plants were given soluble fertilizer, and to a much greater extent in older plants. Contrary to predictions, root mass increased with pot size only in the treatment with high water-soluble fertilizer where plant size increased greatly with pot size. Root allocation showed a complex pattern of responses with plant life stage and nutrient treatments that were not predicted by the Hess and de Kroon hypotheses.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".