Data from: Evidence for reductions in physical and chemical plant defense traits in island flora
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reduced defense against large herbivores has been suggested to be part of the “island syndrome” in plants. However, empirical evidence for this pattern is mixed. In this paper, we present two studies that compare putative physical and chemical defense traits from plants on the California Channel Islands and nearby mainland based on sampling of both field and common garden plants. In the first study, we focus on five pairs of woody shrubs from three island and three mainland locations and find evidence for increased leaf area, decreased marginal leaf spines, and decreased concentrations of cyanogenic glycosides in island plants. We observed similar increases in leaf area and decreases in defense traits when comparing island and mainland genotypes grown together in botanic gardens, suggesting that trait differences are not solely driven by abiotic differences between island and mainland sites. In the second study, we conducted a common garden experiment with a perennial herb—Stachys bullata (Lamiaceae)—collected from two island and four mainland locations. Compared to their mainland relatives, island genotypes show highly reduced glandular trichomes and a nearly 100-fold reduction in mono- and sesquiterpene compounds from leaf surfaces. Island genotypes also had significantly higher specific leaf area, somewhat lower rates of gas exchange, and greater aboveground biomass than mainland genotypes across two years of study, potentially reflecting a broader shift in growth habit. Together, our results provide evidence for reduced expression of putative defense traits in island plants, though these results may reflect adaptation to both biotic (i.e., the historical absence of large herbivores) and climatic conditions on islands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".