MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are competitive effect and response two sides of the same coin, or fundamentally different?

2009· article· en· W2104089855 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesState Administration of Foreign Experts AffairsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsBiologyCompetition (biology)TraitPerennial plantPlant ecologyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary 1. The ability to suppress neighbour growth and the ability to withstand growth suppression are widely viewed as two forms of competition, competitive effect and competitive response. 2. We conducted a greenhouse experiment to determine whether these two forms of competition were functionally linked, and to determine which plant traits are associated with effect and response competitive abilities among seedlings of 22 perennial North American prairie species. We further explored the trait‐function relationship by growing plants under different soil fertilities and with different neighbour species. 3. To determine competitive abilities, we used a phytometer approach with two phytometer species: Poa pratensis and Achillea millefolium grown in competition with each of the 22 focal species under low and high fertility. Root and shoot morphological traits were measured and principal component analyses were used to reduce the dimensionality of the data. Three axes were extracted, which roughly corresponded to size, root and shoot architecture. 4. The hierarchy of competitive effect ability of the target species did not vary with either soil fertility or neighbour identity, while the hierarchies of competitive response abilities were highly variable among the treatments. Competitive effect ability was closely associated with size‐related traits under high nutrient conditions, and with root‐related traits under low nutrient conditions. In contrast, few plant traits axes were related to competitive response. 5. These findings indicate significant differences between competitive effect and response ability. We suggest competitive effect ability is a consistent trait of a species, linked to specific plant traits. In contrast, we found little evidence to support the idea that competitive response ability is itself a species trait, and instead it appears this may be simply a collection of different ways of avoiding or tolerating competition and/or low nutrient conditions. Supporting this argument was a lack of any consistency in which traits were associated with competitive response ability. 6. We recognize the limitations of a single study of seedlings under greenhouse conditions. However, we suggest these findings indicate a need to critically examine current assumptions about plant competition, how it is defined, and the traits which control a species’ competitive ability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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