Synergistic and additive effects of drought stress and simulated herbivory on two goldenrods, <i>Solidago altissima</i> and <i>S. gigantea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the combined effects of stressors on plants is important for understanding how they will tolerate herbivory and other damage under unfavorable conditions. When two stresses have synergistic effects, plants may experience particularly strong impacts. We examined individual and combined effects of drought stress and clipping (simulated herbivory) on two species of goldenrods (Solidago altissima L. and S. gigantea Ait.). Each stress reduced production of most plant structures, with drought stress having stronger impacts than clipping. The effects of the two stresses were additive for S. gigantea but synergistic for S. altissima, at least for aboveground biomass and inflorescence biomass. Both species, when under stress, reallocated resources toward asexual reproduction (rhizomes) and away from sexual reproduction (inflorescences). Our results suggest that even closely related plants may tolerate damage differently when under abiotic stresses, and that predicting the additive vs. synergistic action of combined stresses will be difficult.
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".