Facilitation in an unproductive boreal forest understorey community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions: We tested the hypothesis that if competition had a significant influence in structuring this boreal plant community, removal of neighbours, addition of fertilizer and addition of water would all benefit the transplanted seedlings. Alternatively, if facilitation had a greater influence, then removal of neighbours would be detrimental to the transplants but fertilization and watering would still be beneficial. Location: Understorey of the boreal forest in southwestern Yukon Territory, Canada (138°22′W; 61°02′N). Methods: Ten of the most common species were transplanted as seedlings into transects from which all neighbours had been removed, and also into transects with intact vegetation. We used a factorial design with two levels of watering and two levels of fertilization; this allowed us to test effects at both species and community level. Results: The summed survival and total biomass of all transplants was significantly higher in the presence of neighbours than without neighbours, indicating a facilitative effect of neighbouring plants, but there were significant increases in only six of the ten species. The combined survival and biomass of all species increased with watering, survival decreased and biomass increased with fertilization, but only two species had significant responses to fertilization: Anenome parviflora decreased and Mertensia paniculata increased in biomass. Watering increased the biomass of Achillea millefolium, Festuca altaica and Solidago multiradiata; there were also some interaction effects. Conclusions: (1) The presence of neighbours was generally facilitative. (2) Fertilization had negligible effects, and watering had minor beneficial effects. (3) This study demonstrates the importance of facilitation in structuring this boreal understorey community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".