Exposure to aphids increases alder growth and nitrogen fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants can respond to herbivore damage by mounting a resistance response or by compensating for lost fitness. Both plant nutrition and interactions with soil microbes can affect these responses. It has been shown that resistance responses can occur before plants have been attacked by herbivores. Here we show that a tolerance type of response can occur when plants are exposed to, but not fed on by, herbivores. Alnus viridis (Chaix) DC. spp. crispa (Ait.) Turrill were grown in sealed containers under positive air pressure with either 0.5 mmol·L–1 or 2.0 mmol·L–1 nitrate and either inoculated or not inoculated with Frankia , their nitrogen-fixing symbiont. Plants were then exposed to the genus-specific aphid Prociphilus tessallatus Fitch, which failed to establish feeding colonies. Exposure to aphids, formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules, and elevated soil nitrogen levels all significantly increased plant yield with no interaction among these factors. A combination of high soil nitrogen, nodulation, and exposure to aphids resulted in the lowest plant root:shoot ratio. Plants that were grown with low nitrogen and were exposed to aphids showed increased nitrogen-fixing activity within a day of being exposed. These results provide further evidence to support the observation that plants can respond to cues from other organisms prior to receiving herbivore damage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".