Interactions between root and shoot competition vary among species
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Understanding how the competition varies with productivity is essential for differentiating among alternative models of plant community organization. Prior attempts to explain shifts in root and shoot competition along gradients have generally assumed an additive interaction between the two competitive forms, using an experimental design which does not fully separate both above‐ and belowground processes. At the most basic level, few field studies have separated root and shoot competition, and we have limited knowledge about both the relative importance of these processes, and how they interact to affect plant growth in the field. Presented here are findings from a field study in which root and shoot competition were experimentally separated by using root exclusion tubes and neighbor tiebacks in an early successional community. Individuals of four species ( Abutilon theophrasti, Amaranthus retroflexus, Rumex crispus, and Plantago lanceolata ) were grown at two levels of fertilization with full competition, aboveground competition only, belowground competition only, or neither above‐ nor belowground competition. Competition was measured as competitive response, which is the natural log of the relative biomass of a target plant grown with competition compared to growth without competition. In contrast to predictions from current models of productivity‐competition relationships, but in agreement with other experimental studies, there was no change in the strengths or root, shoot, or total competition with a modest increase in productivity. Despite no effect of fertilization on the strength of competition, the form of interaction between root and shoot competition varied both as a function of species identity and fertilization. For both of the rosette forming species, the combined effects of root and shoot competition were less than predicted assuming no interaction (a “negative interaction”), with one species switching from a negative to an additive interaction with fertilization. The fact that fertilization caused a shift in the root‐shoot interaction, but not in the total strength of root and shoot competition, suggests that the root‐shoot interaction is itself a highly labile variable. If root‐shoot interactions are common in natural systems, then simply measuring the strength of one form of competition in no way provides any information about the overall importance of that competitive form to plant growth.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».