Persistence in the seed bank: The effects of fungi and invertebrates on seeds of native and exotic plants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungal pathogens and invertebrate seed predators both may limit the establishment of persistent seed banks. Exotic plants may be less subject to attack by these natural enemies than are native species; if so, this may provide exotics with an important advantage by reducing seed mortality and enhancing the persistence of colonizing populations. We investigated this idea with a field experiment in which we used fungicides and screening to protect seeds of 39 native and exotic old field plants. The recovery of germinable seeds was improved by fungicide additions, but not by the exclusion of macroinvertebrates. The effects of fungicide varied among species and sampling dates, but the recovery of natives was not consistently improved more than the recovery of exotics. These results suggest that soil fungi have important impacts on the seed banks of many species, but that exotics are not consistently more resistant than natives to attacks by either fungal pathogens or invertebrates. Consequently, it is unlikely that the majority of invaders benefit from reduced pest loads at the seed bank stage.
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.
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 it