Changes in the Amount and Distribution of Soil Nutrients and Neighbours Have Differential Impacts on Root and Shoot Architecture in Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants exhibit differential behaviours through changes in biomass development and distribution in response to environmental cues, which may impact crops uniquely. We conducted a mesocosm experiment in pots to determine the root and shoot behavioural responses of wheat, T. aestivum. Plants were grown in homogeneous or heterogeneous and heavily or lightly fertilized soil, and alone or with a neighbour of the same or different genetic identity (cultivars: CDC Titanium, Carberry, Glenn, Go Early, and Lillian). Contrary to predictions, wheat did not alter relative reproductive effort in the presence of neighbours, more nutrients, or homogenous soil. Above and below ground, the plants’ tendency to use potentially shared space exhibited high levels of plasticity. Above ground, they generally avoided shared, central aerial space when grown with neighbours. Unexpectedly, nutrient amount and distribution also impacted shoots; plants that grew in fertile or homogenous environments increased shared space use. Below ground, plants grown with related neighbours indicated no difference in neighbour avoidance. Those in homogenous soil produced relatively even roots, and plants in heterogeneous treatments produced more roots in nutrient patches. Additionally, less fertile soil resulted in pot-level decreases in root foraging precision. Our findings illustrate that explicit coordination between above- and belowground biomass in wheat may not exist.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".