Invasive plants escape from suppressive soil biota at regional scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A prominent hypothesis for plant invasions is escape from the inhibitory effects of soil biota. Although the strength of these inhibitory effects, measured as soil feedbacks, has been assessed between natives and exotics in non‐native ranges, few studies have compared the strength of plant–soil feedbacks for exotic species in soils from non‐native versus native ranges. We examined whether 6 perennial European forb species that are widespread invaders in North American grasslands (Centaurea stoebe, Euphorbia esula, Hypericum perforatum, Linaria vulgaris, Potentilla recta and Leucanthemum vulgare) experienced different suppressive effects of soil biota collected from 21 sites across both ranges. Four of the six species tested exhibited substantially reduced shoot biomass in ‘live’ versus sterile soil from Europe. In contrast, North American soils produced no significant feedbacks on any of the invasive species tested indicating a broad scale escape from the inhibitory effects of soil biota. Negative feedbacks generated by European soil varied idiosyncratically among sites and species. Since this variation did not correspond with the presence of the target species at field sites, it suggests that negative feedbacks can be generated from soil biota that are widely distributed in native ranges in the absence of density‐dependent effects. Synthesis. Our results show that for some invasives, native soils have strong suppressive potential, whereas this is not the case in soils from across the introduced range. Differences in regional‐scale evolutionary history among plants and soil biota could ultimately help explain why some exotics are able to occur at higher abundance in the introduced versus native range.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".