Functional equivalence, competitive hierarchy and facilitation determine species coexistence in highly invaded grasslands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alien and native plant species often differ in functional traits. Trait differences could lead to niche differences that minimize competitive interactions and stabilize coexistence. However, trait differences could also translate into average fitness differences, leading to a competitive hierarchy that prevents coexistence. We tested whether trait differences between alien and native species translated into average fitness or stabilizing niche differences, and whether competition could explain observed coexistence within invaded grassland communities (New Zealand). Trait differences reflected marked competitive hierarchy, suggesting average fitness differences. Species coexistence was determined by a trade-off between species susceptibility to herbivory vs competitive hierarchy and facilitation. Importantly, although aliens and natives differed in their trait values, they did not differ in their competitive response, highlighting the importance of equalizing mechanisms in structuring invaded communities. Only a few alien species with a particular set of traits were able to jeopardize species coexistence when grazing was ceased. Our study explains why some alien species coexist with natives, whereas others have strong impacts on native communities. It highlights that trait differences can underlie several coexistence processes and that the demonstration of trait differences between aliens and natives is only a first step to understanding the role of biotic interactions in structuring invaded communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".