<i>Is the productivity of vegetation plots higher or lower when there are more species? Variable predictions from interaction of the ‘sampling effect’ and ‘competitive dominance effect’ on the habitat templet</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a habitat templet model, we predict that the productivity (total biomass) of plots within a plant community may be positively, negatively or not at all related to variation in the number of species per plot, depending on successional stage (time since major disturbance) and habitat carrying capacity (reflecting the total resource supplying power of the habitat). For plots of a given size, a positive relationship between productivity and species richness is predicted in recently disturbed habitats because local neighbourhoods here will have been assembled largely stochastically, usually from a pool of available species with a right‐skewed size frequency distribution. Hence, in the earliest stages of succession, plots will have relatively high total biomass only if they contain at least some of the relatively uncommon larger species which will, in turn, be more likely in those neighbourhoods that contain more species (the sampling effect). Among these will also be some of the more common smaller species; hence, these high biomass, species‐rich plots should have relatively low species evenness, in contrast to what is predicted under effects involving species complementarity. In late succession, the plots with high total biomass will still be those that contain relatively large species but these plots will now contain relatively few species owing to increased competitive exclusion over time (the competitive dominance effect). In intermediate stages of succession, no relationship between plot productivity and species richness is predicted because the opposing sampling and competitive dominance effects cancel each other out. We predict that the intensity of both the sampling and competitive dominance effects on the productivity/species richness relationship will decrease with decreasing habitat carrying capacity (e.g. decreasing substrate fertility) owing to the inherently lower variance in between‐plot productivity that is predicted for more resource‐impoverished habitats.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".