Do larger plants produce more and better seeds and seedlings? Testing the hypothesis in a globose cactus, <i>Wigginsia sessiliflora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In iteroparous plants, an increase in allocation to reproduction is expected with increasing plant size. The aim of this study was to analyze how plant diameter is related to total produced seed mass, seed number, mean seed mass, percentage and mean germination time (MGT), and seedling size and shape in Wigginsia sessiliflora (Hook.) D.M. Porter (Cactaceae), a slow-growing globose species from central Argentina. Plant diameter was measured in a population of 185 individuals, and fruits were collected. We counted all seeds to obtain seed number, and weighed them to get seed mass and total seed mass. Seeds were germinated and data of germination percentage and MGT were collected. We also measured the size (height and width) and shape of seedlings (height/width relationship). Fifty-four percent of the plants did not produce fruits. Plant diameter was unimodally related to fruit number, total seed mass, and seed number, i.e., intermediate-sized plants presented the highest values. Height and shape of seedlings were positively related to plant diameter. Surprisingly, plant diameter was related in a unimodal way to reproductive outputs. As plants grow, surface–volume ratio decreases, meaning that respiratory losses would be higher than the increase in photosynthetic capacity; therefore, fewer resources may be available for reproduction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".