A hidden herbivory effect on <i>Sphagnum</i> reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defence theories provide predictions about trade-offs in the allocation of resources to defence and growth. However, very little is known about how pressure from herbivores influences the allocation of resources during reproduction. Two common peatland bryophyte species, Sphagnum angustifolium and S. capillifolium, were chosen as study species. Vegetative and reproductive shoots of both Sphagnum species were subjected to treatments with and without herbivores in a lab experiment. After 4 weeks of exposure to herbivores in a growth chamber, we measured biomass production, net photosynthesis rate, defence traits (phenolics in leachate and phenolics in extract), nonstructural carbohydrates (soluble sugar and starch), and reproductive traits (capsule number, weight and diameter, and spore germination) of both Sphagnum species. Reproductive shoots had higher constitutive defence than vegetative shoots in S. angustifolium, and a similar pattern was observed in S. capillifolium. With herbivory, reproductive shoots showed stronger induced defence (released more phenolics) than vegetative shoots in S. capillifolium, but not in S. angustifolium. Herbivory had no effect on capsule number, weight, or diameter, but reduced spore germination percentage by more than half in both species. Our study highlights the hidden effects of herbivory on reproduction of Sphagnum and indicates the presence of maternal effects in bryophytes. Ecologists will benefit from examining both quality- and quantity-based traits when attempting to estimate the herbivory effect on plant fitness.
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".