The reciprocal relationship between competition and intraspecific trait variation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Trait differences among plants are expected to influence the outcome of competition; competition should be strongest between similar species (or individuals) under limiting similarity, and between dissimilar species within competitive hierarchies. These hypotheses are often used to infer competitive dynamics from trait patterns within communities. However, plant traits are frequently plastic in response to competition. This variation is poorly accounted for in trait‐based studies of competition and community assembly. To explore the relationship between trait responses and competitive outcomes, we grew 15 species alone, in monoculture and in mixture. We measured traits relating to leaf and root tissue morphology as well as biomass allocation and related competition‐induced changes in these traits to intra‐ and interspecific competition using multi‐model inference. Additionally, we tested how traits from different competitive environments influenced potential community assembly inferences. The competitive environment had large effects on species’ traits, although many effects were species specific. Differences among species in how competition affected trait expression were linked to both intra‐ and interspecific competition, frequently affecting competitive hierarchies. Intraspecific competition was lower for species that limited competition‐induced increases in root allocation and had less variability in this trait overall. Interspecific competition was lower for species with larger leaves and lower specific leaf area than their neighbours. Switching to more stress‐tolerant strategies by increasing root diameter and leaf tissue density also reduced competition. However, dissimilarity in root tissue density also minimized competition, consistent with limiting similarity affecting competitive outcomes. Moreover, changes in these traits were linked to changes in functional diversity, suggesting that competition affects functional diversity by affecting trait expression. Synthesis . Both trait hierarchies and trait dissimilarity affect the outcome of competition by acting on different traits, although competition‐induced changes in trait expression can alter competitive outcomes. Moreover, the magnitude of these trait changes suggests that the source environment where plant traits are collected can affect the inferences drawn from trait patterns within communities. Combined, our results suggest that considering the effect of competition on trait expression is critical to understanding the relationship between traits and community assembly.
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 ».