MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076471462 · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12054

Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges

2013· article· en· W2076471462 on OpenAlexaff
Wim H. van der Putten, Richard D. Bardgett, James D. Bever, Т. Martijn Bezemer, Brenda B. Casper, Tadashi Fukami, Paul Kardol, John N. Klironomos, Andrew Kulmatiski, Jennifer A. Schweitzer, Katharine N. Suding, Tess F. J. van de Voorde, David A. Wardle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEcological Society of America
KeywordsEcologyPlant communityEcosystemEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceClimate changeEcological successionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Plant–soil feedbacks is becoming an important concept for explaining vegetation dynamics, the invasiveness of introduced exotic species in new habitats and how terrestrial ecosystems respond to global land use and climate change. Using a new conceptual model, we show how critical alterations in plant–soil feedback interactions can change the assemblage of plant communities. We highlight recent advances, define terms and identify future challenges in this area of research and discuss how variations in strengths and directions of plant–soil feedbacks can explain succession, invasion, response to climate warming and diversity‐productivity relationships. While there has been a rapid increase in understanding the biological, chemical and physical mechanisms and their interdependencies underlying plant–soil feedback interactions, further progress is to be expected from applying new experimental techniques and technologies, linking empirical studies to modelling and field‐based studies that can include plant–soil feedback interactions on longer time scales that also include long‐term processes such as litter decomposition and mineralization. Significant progress has also been made in analysing consequences of plant–soil feedbacks for biodiversity‐functioning relationships, plant fitness and selection. To further integrate plant–soil feedbacks into ecological theory, it will be important to determine where and how observed patterns may be generalized, and how they may influence evolution. Synthesis . Gaining a greater understanding of plant–soil feedbacks and underlying mechanisms is improving our ability to predict consequences of these interactions for plant community composition and productivity under a variety of conditions. Future research will enable better prediction and mitigation of the consequences of human‐induced global changes, improve efforts of restoration and conservation and promote sustainable provision of ecosystem services in a rapidly changing world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,764
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207