Identifying population‐ and community‐level mechanisms of diversity–stability relationships in experimental grasslands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. While positive effects of biodiversity on temporal stability of communities have been demonstrated in theoretical and empirical studies, diversity–stability relationships at the population level remain poorly understood. 2. We investigated temporal variability of plant populations in experimental grassland plots of varying species richness (1, 2, 4, 8, 16–60 species), functional group richness and composition (presence/absence of legumes × grasses × small herbs × tall herbs) in a long‐term biodiversity experiment from 2003 to 2009 (‘Jena Experiment’). 3. Average population stability, defined as the reciprocal of the coefficient of variation of above‐ground biomass production over time, differed largely between species but was generally higher in grasses and small herbs than in legumes and tall herbs. Furthermore, population stability was positively related to a species’ proportional contribution to community biomass. Thus, an increasing number of subordinate species explained lower average population stabilities at higher diversity levels. 4. A negative covariance (CV) across all species‐richness levels suggested negatively correlated species dynamics. Species belonging to different functional groups fluctuated asynchronously, while species dynamics within functional groups were more synchronous. Community‐wide species synchrony decreased with increasing species richness, and temporal stability at the community level increased. 5. Synthesis: Our results suggest that diversity–stability relationships are driven by fluctuations in the population biomass of individual species which are less synchronized in more diverse than in less diverse mixtures and monocultures. Dominant plant species tend to be more stabilized than subdominant species, independently of community species richness. However, asynchrony of population dynamics outweighs decreasing population stability with increasing species richness, resulting in higher temporal stability at the plant community level.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".