“isometric scaling”

Claim · model-written summary

The observed isometric scaling did not support the predicted reserve effect.

Taxon

speciese1

Outcome

second hypothesis was proved falsee1

Verbatim

e0

“The reserve effect predicted that total resprout mass should have scaled more than proportionately with seed mass.”

e1

“The second hypothesis was proved false: although large‐seeded species resprouted more often, the total mass invested in resprouts scaled isometrically with seed mass across species.”

Claim · model-written summary

The simplest form of the model failed to explain non-isometric growth trajectories, when compared with experimental observations.

Taxon

herbaceous speciese0

Outcome

explaining non-isometric growth trajectoriese3

Qualifier

in its simplest forme3

Comparator

experimental observationse4

Verbatim

e0

“to simulate the growth of herbaceous species”

e3

“failed, in its simplest form, at explaining non-isometric growth trajectories”

e4

“Predicted root-shoot ratios during plant ontogeny were compared with experimental observations”

Claim · model-written summary

Indocalamus pedalis showed a negative isometric relationship between mean leaf fresh mass per culm and leafing intensity.

Taxon

IndocalamusIndocalamuse3

Material

Indocalamus pedalise3

Outcome

A negative isometric relationship was found between the mean leaf fresh mass per culm and the leafing intensitye3

Verbatim

e3

“A negative isometric relationship was found between the mean leaf fresh mass per culm and the leafing intensity for one species (Indocalamus pedalis)”