The facilitative effects by seeds and seedlings on emergence from the seed bank of a desert annual plant community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facilitation is important in structuring plant communities in harsh environments although most recent studies have been descriptive and focussed on adult plant interactions. Here, we test for facilitative effects by seeds and seedlings of Erodium laciniatum and Erucaria pinnata on the emergence and subsequent community structure from an annual plant seed bank in the Negev desert, Israel. We specifically test whether (i) the addition of seeds or seedlings of these species increases emergence from the seed bank, (ii) the addition of seeds or seedlings increases final plant community performance, and (iii) the effect of each species is specific. Both Erodium seeds and seedlings acted as a benefactor for the rest of the plant community by increasing density and biomass of the plants germinated from the seed bank. Erodium seedlings had a stronger positive effect than seeds early in the growing season. Erucaria (seeds and seedlings) did not influence the plant community. This suggests that species interactions are specific and that interactions between seeds and between plants and seeds can influence community structure.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".