Hemiparasite – host plant interactions and the impact of herbivory: a field experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizachyrium scoparium Michx. (Nash) growing naturally with varying numbers of the perennial hemiparasite Pedicularis canadensis L. were randomly assigned to one of four clipping treatments (none, early, late, early and late) to determine how parasitism and herbivory affect the grass and whether herbivory of the host indirectly affects hemiparasite growth. Any clipping eliminated subsequent flowering by S. scoparium in year 1 and reduced the number of plants that flowered in year 2, when no clipping occurred. Only hosts clipped early exhibited depressed growth after one summer. The following year plants that had been clipped twice the previous year produced the least shoot mass, and plants that were never clipped produced the most. Hemiparasite load was negatively associated with host shoot mass, especially in year 1, but did not alter the host’s compensatory response to clipping. The effects of host size and host clipping on the nearest hemiparasite were determined in year 1. Pedicularis canadensis shoot mass declined with host size if the host was clipped late, but increased with host size when clipping occurred once early in the season. Although the impact of hemiparasites and clipping on host growth are independent, clipping can alter the value of the host for parasites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".