MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W64265416 · doi:10.21425/f5fbg18999

Mechanisms controlling the distribution of two invasive Bromus species

2014· article· en· W64265416 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Bykova

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers of Biogeography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBromus tectorumBromusBiologyRange (aeronautics)EcologySpecies distributionBotanyInvasive speciesPoaceaeHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to predict future range shifts for invasive species it is important to explore their ability to acclimate to the new environment and understand physiological and reproductive constraints controlling their distribution. My dissertation studied mechanisms by which temperature may affect the distribution of two aggressive plant invaders in North America, Bromus tectorum and Bromus rubens. I first evaluated winter freezing tolerance of Bromus species and demonstrated that the mechanism explaining their distinct northern range limits is different acquisition time of freezing tolerance. While B. rubens has a slower rate of freezing acclimation that leads to intolerance of sudden, late-autumn drops in temperature below -12°C, B. tectorum rapidly hardens and so is not impacted by the sudden onset of severe late-autumn cold. In addition, the analysis of male reproductive development and seed production showed that neither species produces seed at or above 36°C, due to complete pollen sterility, which might trigger climate-mediated range contractions at B. tectorum and B. rubens southern margins. Finally, a detailed gas-exchange analysis combined with biochemical modelling demonstrated that both species acclimate to a broad range of temperatures and photosynthetic response to temperature does not explain their current range separation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers of BiogeographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207