MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327725933 · doi:10.1139/b11-045

Hemiparasite – host plant interactions and the impact of herbivory: a field experiment

2011· article· en· W2327725933 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mickayla D. Van Hoveln, Bethany A. Evans, Victoria A. Borowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHost (biology)HerbivoreClipping (morphology)ShootPerennial plantParasitismBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207