Weak conspecific feedbacks and exotic dominance in a species-rich savannah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether dominance drives species loss can depend on the power of conspecific self-limitation as dominant populations expand; these limitations can stabilize competitive imbalances that might otherwise cause displacement. We quantify the relative strength of conspecific and heterospecific soil feedbacks in an exotic-dominated savannah, using greenhouse trials and field surveys to test whether dominants are less self-suppressed, highly suppressive of others or both. Soil feedbacks can impact plant abundance, including invasion, but their implications for coexistence in invader-dominated systems are unclear. We found that conspecific feedbacks were significantly more negative than heterospecific ones for all species including the dominant invaders; even the rarest natives performed significantly better in the soils of other species. The strength of these negative feedbacks, however, was approximately 50 per cent stronger for natives and matched their field abundance--the most self-limited natives were rare and narrowly distributed. These results suggest that exotics dominate by interacting with natives carrying heavier conspecific feedback burdens, without cultivating either negative heterospecific effects that suppress natives or positive ones that accelerate their own expansion. These feedbacks, however, could contribute to coexistence because all species were self-limited in their own soils. Although the net impact of this feedback stabilization will probably interact with other factors (e.g. herbivory), soil feedbacks may thus contribute to invader dominance without necessarily being detrimental to species richness.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".