Secondary metabolites have more influence than morphophysiological traits on litter decomposability across genotypes of <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although interspecific variation in plant phenotype is recognised to impact afterlife processes such as litter decomposability, it is still unclear which traits and selection pressures explain these relationships. Examining intraspecific variation is crucial to identify and compare trait effects on decomposability, and investigate the potential role of natural selection. We studied the genetic variability and relationships between decomposability, plant traits typically related to decomposability at species level (morphophysiological traits), and leaf metabolites among a set of genotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana grown under controlled conditions. We also investigated correlations between decomposability and environmental variables at genotypes collection site. We investigated the genetic architecture of decomposability with genome-wide association studies (GWAS). There was large genetic variability in decomposability that was correlated with precipitation. Morphophysiological traits had a minor effect, while secondary metabolites, especially glucosinolates, were correlated with decomposability. Consistently, GWAS suggested that genes and metabolites related to the composition of cell membranes and envelopes control the variation of decomposability across genotypes. Our study suggests that decomposability varies within species as a result of metabolic adaptation to climate. Our findings highlight that subtle variations of defence-related metabolites like glucosinolates may strongly influence after-life processes such as decomposability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".