MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008120467 · doi:10.1139/b03-023

Competitive and facilitative interactions within and between two species of coastal dune perennials

2003· article· en· W2008120467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven J. Franks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Estuarine Research Reserve SystemUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsFacilitationCompetition (biology)EcologyInterspecific competitionBiomass (ecology)BiologyDisturbance (geology)Environmental gradientIntraspecific competitionPerennial plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there is substantial evidence for facilitation, the effects of such factors as stress and species identity on positive interactions remain controversial. At two coastal dune sites, I tested the hypotheses that facilitative interactions increase with increasing stress and disturbance along an environmental gradient and that facilitative interactions are stronger among heterospecific than among conspecific individuals. I transplanted Uniola paniculata and Iva imbricata plants into plots along with four conspecific neighbors, four heterospecific neighbors, or no neighbors across an environmental gradient. Neighbors increased target plant survival, suggesting facilitation, but biomass of targets was reduced by the presence of neighbors, suggesting competition. Unexpectedly, competition was greatest in the purportedly most stressful and disturbed zone. In this study, the outcome of neighbor interactions differed for biomass and survival and depended on position along the environmental gradient, but was independent of neighbor identity.Key words: competition, disturbance, facilitation, Iva imbricata, stress, Uniola paniculata.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207