Optimal foraging strategies in varying nutrient heterogeneity: responses of a stoloniferous clonal plant to patch pattern, size and quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrast and aggregation are two components of spatial heterogeneity. To precisely determine the influence of varying nutrient heterogeneity on the foraging behavior of clonal plants, we selected Potentilla anserina L. as the material and designed different patch patterns, sizes and qualities. In Experiment 1, compared with random and uniform patch patterns, aggregation increased ramet density and biomass accumulation at the patch scale, but not at the plot scale. This implies that the adaptive responses of clonal plants to nutrient heterogeneity depend on spatial scale. We further designed three levels of patch size with the same fertilizer concentration at the patch scale in Experiment 2, and four levels of patch quality with the same total amount of fertilizer at the plot scale in Experiment 3. Increased ramet density and stolon growth rate within small patches in Experiment 2 demonstrated effects of heterogeneity on plant foraging responses at the patch scale, while no difference was found in Experiment 3. This means that the influence of patch size on ramet establishment and residence time was alleviated by patch contrast at larger spatial scales. Hence, spatial scale is a key factor determining the interactions between heterogeneous ecosystem components.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".