Seed coatings containing capsaicin reduce seed removal in temperate woody species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coating seeds in taste-averting chemical defenses (e.g., capsaicin from Capsicum spp.) can reduce rodent seed predation, and thus might promote plant establishment and forest regeneration. However, the efficacy of such seed coatings remains unknown for many woody plant species, and seed coatings have not been evaluated across different habitats where forest managers might seek to promote forest regeneration. We used two complementary seed-removal experiments in closed-canopy forests (Michigan) and an old field undergoing reforestation (New York) to examine whether coating seeds of four native tree species ( Acer rubrum, Fagus grandifolia, Pinus banksiana, and Pinus resinosa) with chili powder reduces seed removal by rodents. In all species and habitats, control seeds were removed more than seeds treated with capsaicin (94% more in the closed-canopy forest, 17% more in the old field). Seed coatings containing capsaicin may provide a generally effective tool to support native tree recruitment and promote restoration success.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".