Soil biotic quality lacks spatial structure and is positively associated with fertility in a northern grassland
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract When placing roots in the soil, plants integrate information about soil nutrients, plant neighbours and beneficial/detrimental soil organisms. While the fine‐scale spatial heterogeneity in soil nutrients and plant neighbours have been described previously, virtually nothing is known about the spatial structure in soil biotic quality (measured here as a soil Biota‐Induced plant Growth Response, or BIGR), or its correlation with nutrients or neighbours. Such correlations could imply trade‐offs in root placement decisions. Theory would predict that soil BIGR is (1) negatively related to soil fertility and (2) associated with plant community structure, such that plants influence soil biota (and vice versa) through plant–soil feedbacks. We would also expect that since plants have species‐specific impacts on soil organisms, spatially homogeneous plant communities should also homogenize soil BIGR. Here, we test these hypotheses in a semi‐arid grassland by (1) characterizing the spatial structure of soil BIGR at a scale experienced by an individual plant and (2) correlating it to soil abiotic properties and plant community structure. We do so in two types of plant communities: (1) low‐diversity patches dominated by an invasive grass ( Bromus inermis Leyss.) and (2) patches covered mostly by native vegetation, with the expectation that dominance by Bromus would homogenize soil BIGR. Soil BIGR was spatially heterogeneous, but not autocorrelated. This was true in both vegetation types ( Bromus ‐invaded vs. native patches). Conversely, soil abiotic properties and plant community structure were frequently spatially autocorrelated at similar scales. Also, contrary to many studies, we found a positive correlation between soil BIGR and soil fertility. Soil BIGR was also associated with plant community structure. Synthesis . The positive correlation between soil BIGR and some soil nutrient levels suggests that plants do not necessarily trade‐off between foraging for nutrients vs. biotic interactions: nutritional cues could rather indicate the presence of beneficial soil biota. Moreover, the spatial structure in plant communities, coupled with their correlation with soil BIGR, jointly suggest that plant–soil feedbacks operate at local scales in the field: this has been identified in modelling studies as an important driver of plant coexistence.
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 ».