MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953223666 · doi:10.1111/ele.13325

The demographic effects of functional traits: an integral projection model approach reveals population‐level consequences of reproduction‐defence trade‐offs

2019· letter· en· W2953223666 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Soren Struckman, John J. Couture, M. Drew LaMar, Harmony J. Dalgleish

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of William and MaryMcGill UniversityGarden Club of America
KeywordsReproductionEcologyBiologyPopulationDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitatively linking individual variation in functional traits to demography is a necessary step to advance our understanding of trait-based ecological processes. We constructed a population model for Asclepias syriaca to identify how functional traits affect vital rates and population growth and whether trade-offs in chemical defence and demography alter population growth. Plants with higher foliar cardenolides had lower fibre, cellulose and lignin levels, as well as decreased sexual and clonal reproduction. Average cardenolide concentrations had the strongest effect on population growth. In both the sexual and clonal pathway, the trade-off between reproduction and defence affected population growth. We found that both increasing the mean of the distribution of individual plant values for cardenolides and herbivory decreased population growth. However, increasing the variance in both defence and herbivory increased population growth. Functional traits can impact population growth and quantifying individual-level variation in traits should be included in assessments of population-level processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207