Size distributions and dispersions along a 485‐year chronosequence for sand dune vegetation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a sand dune chronosequence that spans 485 years of primary succession, we collected nearest-neighbor vegetation data to test two predictions associated with the traditional "size-advantage" hypothesis for plant competitive ability: (1) the relative representation of larger species should increase in later stages of succession; and (2) resident species that are near neighbors should, over successional time, become more similar in plant body size and/or seed size than expected by random assembly. The first prediction was supported over the time period between mid to later succession, but the second prediction was not; that is, there was no temporal pattern across the chronosequence indicating that either larger resident species, or larger seeded resident species, increasingly exclude smaller ones from local neighborhoods over time. Rather, neighboring species were generally more different from each other in seed sizes than expected by random assembly. As larger species accumulate over time, some relatively small species are lost from later stages of succession, but species size distributions nevertheless remain strongly right-skewed-even in late succession-and species of disparate sizes are just as likely as in early succession to coexist as immediate neighbors. This local-scale coexistence of disparate sized neighbors might be accounted for-as in traditional interpretations-in terms of species differences in "physical-space-niches" (e.g., involving different rooting depths), combined with possible facilitation effects. We propose, however, that this coexistence may also occur because competitive ability involves more than just a size advantage, with traits associated with survival (tolerance of intense competition) and fecundity (offspring production despite intense competition) being at least equally important.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".