Species‐specific positive effects in an annual plant community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant facilitation studies commonly test the nurse‐plant hypothesis wherein an adult shrub species enhances the establishment of associated herbaceous species under its canopy. Using field and glasshouse experiments, this hypothesis is extended by testing the following four predictions: (1) nurse‐plant effects can occur between species with similar life‐forms and phenologies (2) positive effects are species specific, (3) the outcome of interactions is life‐stage dependent, and (4) facilitative interactions among annuals are primarily commensal. In the Negev Desert in Israel, the response of an annual plant community to removal of relatively larger annuals, Erodium laciniatum , Erucaria pinnata and Trifolium tomentosum , was tested in the field and in the glasshouse. Removal of these dominants was applied early in the growing season, immediately after germination but before establishment of seedlings, and again mid‐season following establishment and growth to adults. In both the field and glasshouse, the presence of E. laciniatum increased establishment and survival to reproduction of neighbouring plants. These positive effects were life‐stage dependent with more positive effects occurring early in the season, and there was no cost of facilitation to E. laciniatum . This positive effect was species specific in that neither E. pinnata nor T. tomentosum had an effect on the plant community. There was also a cost of association with the nurse E. laciniatum in that biomass of neighbours was reduced. These experiments demonstrate that the positive effects typically detected at larger scales between species of different life‐forms are also occurring at finer spatial scales amongst annuals. This study clearly supports the predictions made in the facilitation literature that effects are species‐specific and highly life‐stage dependent.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".