MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Facilitative interactions on coastal dunes in response to seasonal weather fluctuations and benefactor size

2004· article· en· W2544857660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Luisa Martínez, Octavio Pérez-Maqueo, Víctor M. Vásquez

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsShrubCanopyFacilitationSeedlingEcologyBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:We analyzed spatial plant-plant associations (during three seasons: nortes, dry, and rainy) and performed a field experiment on seedling survival, in order to test whether the occurrence of facilitation varied in response to seasonal weather fluctuations and to benefactor size. In a mobile dune system (central Gulf of Mexico) we focused on the endemic early colonizer shrub Chamaecrista chamaecristoides and two late colonizer bunch grasses. Total shrub cover and density were highest during the rainy period. Density of adult Trachypogon plumosus, but not that of adult Schizachyrium scoparium, was higher beneath the canopy of the shrub. No seasonal variations in spatial associations were observed. Density of grass seedlings decreased during the nortes beneath and beyond the canopy of C. chamaecristoides. Fitness parameters of both grasses improved beneath the benefactor plants, while sand accretion decreased. The number of grass individuals benefiting from facilitation increased with shrub size except for the largest shrubs, which had a reduced density of grasses. Temperature on the sand surface was lowest beneath the larger shrubs. Our results highlight the importance of different life stages at which facilitation may occur together with a varying effect of benefactor size in the overall role of facilitation in structuring communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207