Consequences of differing competitive abilities between juvenile and adult plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The competitive ability of perennial plants can change with life‐stage, but whether these changes have fitness consequences is unknown. We present a simple model of two components of fitness, mortality and flowering rates, for two grassland species with very different patterns of competitive ability and life‐stage. Achillea millefolium seedlings are poor competitors while the adults are good competitors. In contrast, Solidago missouriensis seedlings and adults have similar competitive ability. Models of the two species show that the overall effects of competition on growth are more important than interspecific differences in competitive ability in determining mortality and flowering rates, though the higher seedling competitive ability of S. missouriensis relative to A. millefolium seedlings does result in slightly lower mortality and higher flowering rates for the former species. Simulations where both average competitive ability and relative seedling and adult competitive ability are varied predict that dominant species with high overall competitive ability should experience no advantage or disadvantage from varying competitive ability through development. When overall competitive ability is moderate, the relative costs and benefits of differential competitive abilities among adults and seedlings are variable. High seedling competitive ability relative to adult competitive ability should be favored among species with low overall competitive ability. We predict that communities with high intensity of competition should have a high frequency of species with high seedling competitive ability, while communities with lower intensity of competition should have species with a wide range of relative seedling and adult competitive ability.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".