Seasonal life-history trade-offs differ between plants derived from seed versus rhizomes in <i>Saponaria officinalis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many perennial plants reproduce both sexually through seeds and asexually through vegetative clones, and these contrasting origins can shape subsequent life-history strategies. Because clonal propagules begin with greater parental resource provisioning, whereas seedlings establish independently, these alternative origins create natural variation in early resource availability and developmental trajectories. This variation provides an opportunity to test predictions from life-history theory: while investment in current reproduction is expected to trade off with future growth or survival, such costs are often difficult to detect unless reproductive effort varies substantially among individuals or is experimentally manipulated. In this study, we compared growth, reproduction, and survival of seed- and rhizome-origin individuals of the invasive perennial Saponaria officinalis across three years in a common garden. We also manipulated reproductive effort in a subset of plants through pollen supplementation and tracked seasonal changes in flowering and seed production. Seedlings initially grew faster and made more branches and flowers than rhizome-origin plants, but by the second year rhizomes were larger and had more flowers. Seedlings also exhibited far worse survival than rhizomes. Across the flowering season, seed number per capsule declined, consistent with both increasing competition among flowers and declining resource availability. Pollen-supplemented seedlings had the most seeds per capsule early in the season and were the only group to suffer overwinter mortality, indicating a survival cost of elevated early reproductive investment. Overall, our findings show that reproductive origin influences allocation to growth, reproduction, and survival, with consequences for the establishment and spread of this invasive weed.
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".