Neighborhood effects and size‐asymmetric competition in a tree plantation varying in diversity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plantation of native trees was established in Panama in 2001 to study the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Five years later, mixed-species plots had experienced enhanced tree growth compared with monocultures. Searching for underlying mechanisms, we developed a neighborhood model isolating size and identity effects. We found that the size of neighbors is, by far, the largest source of variation in individual-tree diameter and height. Size-asymmetric competition appears as a structuring factor in the plantation. The relative growth rate of small trees was significantly lower than that of large trees, and their height and basal diameter were most variable. The 50 smallest trees of the plantation suffered a disproportionate amount of death, and the proportion of small trees was highest in monoculture. Increased biomass allocation to branches for trees growing in three-species plots suggests that competition for light might be taking place. Clearly, local neighborhood plays a central role in determining productivity, suggesting that scale needs to be incorporated in the theoretical development and analysis of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it