Competitive effects of grasses and woody plants in mixed‐grass prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Variation in the competitive ability of plant species may determine their persistence and abundance in communities. We quantified the competitive effects of grasses and woody plants in native mixed‐grass prairie on the performance of transplant species and on resources. We separated the effects of grasses, shrubs and intact vegetation containing both grasses and shrubs by manipulating the natural vegetation using selective herbicides to create four neighbourhood treatments: no neighbours (NN), no shrubs (NS), no grasses (NG) and all neighbours (AN). Treatments were applied to 2 × 2 m experimental plots located in either grass‐ or shrub‐dominated habitats. The effects of grasses and shrubs on resource availability (light, soil moisture, soil available nitrogen) and on the growth of transplants of Bouteloua gracilis , a perennial tussock grass, and Elaeagnus commutata , a common shrub, were measured over two growing seasons. Resource availability was two‐ to fivefold higher in no neighbour (NN) plots than in vegetated plots (NS, NG, AN) with grasses and shrubs having similar effects. Light penetration declined linearly with increasing grass or shrub biomass, to a minimum of about 30% incident light at 500 g m −2 shoot mass. Soil resources did not decline with increasing neighbour shoot or root mass for either grasses or shrubs, suggesting that the presence of neighbours was more important than their abundance. Transplant growth was significantly suppressed by the presence of neighbours, but not by increasing neighbour shoot or root biomass, except for a linear decline in Bouteloua growth with increasing neighbour shoot mass in plots containing only shrubs. Competition intensity, calculated as the reduction in transplant growth by neighbours, was similar in both grass‐ and shrub‐dominated habitats for transplants of Bouteloua , but was less intense in shrub‐dominated habitats for the shrub Elaeagnus . Variation in the persistence and abundance of plants in communities may therefore be more strongly controlled by variation in the competitive effects exerted by neighbours than by differences in competitive response 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".