Reproductive costs in<i>Salix planifolia</i>ssp.<i>planifolia</i>in subarctic Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dioecious plant species, females generally allocate more resources to reproduction than males, essentially because of fruit production. A higher reproductive investment for females may result in lower growth, survival and/or defense, i.e., a higher cost to reproduction. We investigated differences in reproductive cost between males and females of the dioecious shrub Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia in subarctic Québec (Canada). Our aims were to test for the presence of trade-offs between current reproduction and (i) current and future growth, (ii) current defense, and (iii) future reproduction. We estimated the reproductive effort (mass, C, N, and P) of 20 male and 20 female shrubs. We also manipulated the reproductive effort of individual shoots on 20 other shrubs by removing their reproductive buds before the beginning of the flowering season. During the growing season, we counted the number of leaves on each shoot and determined the frequency of herbivory. At the end of the growing season, we estimated twig mass, vegetative bud number, and reproductive bud mass and number. More nutrients were invested in fruit production than either bud or flower production. Thus, females had a significantly greater (1.6 to 2.0 times) reproductive effort than males. Bud removal caused a decrease in the frequency of leaf herbivory and an increase in leaf number, area and mass. Bud removal also led to an increase in the following-year reproductive bud number and mass, more so in females than in males. However, bud removal did not have any effect on twig mass or vegetative bud number, neither in males nor in females. In S. planifolia, there are significant costs to reproduction which are manifested mostly by higher susceptibility to folivores and lower potential for future reproduction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".