Competition and body size in plants: the between-species trade-off for maximum potential versus minimum reproductive threshold size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to traditional theory, superior competitive ability in plants generally requires relatively large plant body size. Yet even within the most crowded vegetation, most resident species are relatively small; species size distributions are right-skewed at virtually every scale. We examine a potential explanation for this paradox: small species coexist with and outnumber large species because they have greater ‘reproductive economy’, i.e. they are better equipped—and hence more likely—to produce offspring despite severe size suppression from intense competition. Randomly placed plots within old-field vegetation were surveyed across the growing season. Within each plot, the largest (MAX) and smallest (MIN) reproductive individuals of each resident species were collected for above-ground dry mass measurement. We tested three hypotheses: (i) smaller resident species (with smaller MAX size) have generally smaller reproductive threshold sizes; (ii) smaller resident species have greater ‘reproductive economy’, i.e. a smaller MIN relative to MAX reproductive plant size; and (iii) MIN size predicts plot occupancy (species abundance within the community) better than MAX size. The results supported the first and third, but not the second hypothesis. However, we could not reject the hypothesis that smaller species have greater reproductive economy, as it was not possible to record data for the largest potential plant size for each species—since even the largest (MAX) plants collected from our sampled plots were subjected to competition from neighbours under these natural field conditions. Importantly, contrary to conventional competition theory, more successful species (in terms of greater plot occupancy) had smaller minimum not larger (or smaller) maximum reproductive sizes. These results suggest that a small reproductive threshold size, commonly associated with relatively small potential body size, is generally more effective in transmitting genes into future generations when selection from neighbourhood crowding/competition is intense—at least within natural old-field vegetation. Accordingly, we propose a simple conceptual model that represents the basis for a fundamental paradigm shift in the predicted selection effects of crowding/competition on plant body size evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 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".