Competition and coexistence in grassland codominants: responses to neighbour removal and resource availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the role of interspecific competition in the regulation of abundance and coexistence of the dominant grasses in tallgrass prairie using a removal experiment with Andropogon gerardii Vitman and Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash, two of the most abundant grasses in tallgrass prairie. Plant removal treatments (using foliar herbicide), applied to 0.3-m2plots at the Konza Prairie Biological Station (northeast Kansas, USA), included removal of all A. gerardii, removal of all S. nutans, and no removal. To determine whether soil fertility altered the outcome, we included a fertilizer addition treatment (10 g N·m2) fully crossed with the removal treatments. Andropogon gerardii removal resulted in significantly increased net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and tiller mass in S. nutans. Sorghastrum nutans removal had little effect on A. gerardii, suggesting asymmetric competition. Fertilizer significantly increased tiller mass and flowering stalk production in S. nutans, but had little effect on A. gerardii. The ability of A. gerardii to suppress the performance of S. nutans is consistent with the greater abundance of A. gerardii over much of the tallgrass prairie, while the ability of S. nutans to take advantage of increased resources may be one mechanism by which it avoids competitive exclusion. Because of the greater variability in the performance of S. nutans than in that of A. gerardii, any natural or anthropogenic alterations to this grassland that lead to shifts in dominance between these species may affect ecosystem productivity and stability.Key words: Andropogon gerardii, competition, grassland, neighbour removal, photosynthesis, Sorghastrum nutans, tallgrass prairie.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".