Why are there so many small plants? Implications for species coexistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The prominently right‐skewed distribution of species sizes has been the subject of a large literature in animal ecology, but has received comparatively little attention from plant ecologists. It is evident that not all explanations that have been offered for animals are directly applicable to plants. We suggest three hypotheses that require further study in the interpretation of size‐dependent species richness in plants. These hypotheses are all based on mechanisms that have generated, for smaller plants, a greater historical opportunity for speciation: (i) large adult plant size confers significant adaptation primarily in habitat types that have been relatively uncommon in space, across evolutionary time; (ii) relatively small species are more widely differentiated from each other in the environmental qualities defining their niches, many of which are made possible by the mere presence of larger species residing in the same habitat; and (iii) compared with large species, smaller species generally have higher fecundity allocation, i.e. they can produce a greater number of offspring per unit plant size per unit time, which generally confers a higher premium under most circumstances of natural selection, thus generating a potentially greater number of descendant individuals, and derived species. We discuss the implications of these hypotheses in addressing an underlying paradox in plant competition/coexistence theory, i.e. that large adult size is assumed to be the principal trait that confers competitive ability yet, even in those habitat types where competition is assumed to reach the highest levels of intensity within vegetation, the vast majority of the resident species are, nevertheless, relatively small.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".