MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973241978 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.0955

Effects of neighbour location and nutrient distributions on root foraging behaviour of the common sunflower

2019· article· en· W2973241978 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSunflower and Safflower Cultivation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForagingSunflowerNutrientBiologyRoot (linguistics)EcologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants regularly encounter patchily distributed soil nutrients. A common foraging response is to proliferate roots within high-quality patches. The influence of the social environment on this behaviour has been given limited attention, despite important fitness consequences of competition for soil resources among plants. Using the common sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.), we compared localized root proliferation in a high-quality patch by plants grown alone to that of plants in two different social environments: with a neighbouring plant sharing equal access to the high-quality patch, and with a neighbouring plant present but farther from the high-quality patch such that the focal individual was in closer proximity to the high-quality patch. Sunflowers grown alone proliferated more roots within high-nutrient patches than lower-nutrient soil. Plants decreased root proliferation within a high-nutrient patch when it was equidistant to a neighbour. Conversely, plants increased root proliferation when they were in closer proximity to the patch relative to a nearby neighbour. Such contingent responses may allow sunflowers to avoid competition in highly contested patches, but to also pre-empt soil resources from neighbours when they have better access to a high-quality patch. We also compared patch occupancy by sunflowers grown alone with two equidistant high-quality patches to occupancy by sunflowers grown with two high-quality patches and a neighbour. Plants grown with a neighbour decreased root length within shared patches but did not increase root length within high-quality patches they were in closer proximity to, perhaps because resource pre-emption may be less important for individuals when resources are more abundant. These results show that nutrient foraging responses in plants can be socially contingent, and that plants may account for the possibility of pre-empting limited resources in their foraging decisions.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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