Variation in Plant Responses to Neighbors at Local and Regional Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in the responses of plant species to neighbors may determine their distribution among contrasting environments, but no studies have compared variation in competitive or facilitative abilities both within and among environments. We determined whether the responses of plants to interspecific interactions varied at large scales (between environments) and small scales (among sites within an environment) across a tree line. We separated the effects of above- and belowground interactions on seedlings of grasses and trees grown in prairie or forest using vegetation removals at several sites. Species interactions generally had no significant effect on transplant survival. Competition reduced seedling growth by about 33%-89% in both prairie and forest environments. Despite the strong suppression of growth by neighbors, environment and species effects contributed more to variation in transplant performance than did neighbor removals. Responses to neighbors varied among transplant species but generally did not vary significantly between environments or among sites. With vegetation removed, grasses grew significantly faster in prairie and trees grew faster in forest. Thus, in the absence of neighbors, species showed distinct preferences for the environment in which they are most abundant. In summary, the responses of grasses and woody species to neighbors did not vary significantly at either large (between environments) or small (among sites) scales. These results suggest that species responses to interspecific interactions do not vary strongly with environment or smaller-scale site effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".