MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245318326 · doi:10.1139/b99-091

Phenotypic plasticity in hybridizing <i>Carpobrotus</i> spp. (Aizoaceae) from coastal California and its role in plant invasion

2000· article· en· W4245318326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ewald Weber, Carla M. D’Antonio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHybridPhenotypic plasticityPerennial plantHabitatBiomass (ecology)Introduced speciesBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N. E. Br., an exotic perennial that invades the coastal habitats of California, hybridizes with the presumed native Carpobrotus chilensis (Mol.) N. E. Br. To investigate the potential role of hybrids in the invasion process by C. edulis, we compared the growth and plasticity of clones of hybrids and parental species. Ramets of three hybrid classes and both parental species were grown in a common garden with four different environments. Both the parental species and the hybrids exhibited strong plastic responses to the test environments for characters describing clonal growth and physiology. Carpobrotus edulis consistently had the largest biomass, but C. chilensis produced longer branches. Carbon isotope ratios (&lt;$QFD0E00000010446D80BFFEFF88A6750DA8D9C8282ADCC6210090483DA6ECD7658F80&gt; 13 C) showed only weak differences among morphotypes. Hybrids were mostly intermediate relative to parental species in both growth and physiological characters. The intermediacy of hybrids in their response to environmental variation indicates that they do not have inferior growth compared with parental species. The high amount of plasticity of the hybrids and C. edulis, as well as their overall similarity, may account for their invasion success in different habitats of coastal California.

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)0.000
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 score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207