The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim An important issue regarding biodiversity concerns its influence on ecosystem functioning. Experimental work has led to the proposal of mechanisms such as niche complementarity. However, few attempts have been made to confirm these in natural systems, especially in forests. Furthermore, one of the most interesting unresolved questions is whether the effects of complementarity on ecosystem functioning (EF) decrease in favour of competitive exclusions over an increasing productivity gradient. Using records from permanent forest plots, we asked the following questions. (1) Is tree productivity positively related to diversity? (2) Does the effect of diversity increase in less productive forests? (3) What metric of diversity (e.g. functional or phylogenetic diversity) better relates to tree productivity? Location Temperate, mixed and boreal forests of eastern Canada. Methods Over 12,000 permanent forest plots, from temperate to boreal forests, were used to test our hypotheses in two steps. (1) Stepwise regressions were used to identify the best explanatory variables for tree productivity. (2) The selected climatic and environmental variables, as well as density and biodiversity indices, were included in a structural equation model where links (paths) between covarying variables are made explicit, making structural equation modelling the best tool to explore such complicated causal networks. Results This is the first large‐scale demonstration of a strong, positive and significant effect of biodiversity on tree productivity with control for climatic and environmental conditions. Important differences were noted between the two forest biomes investigated. Main conclusions We show for the first time that complementarity may be less important in temperate forests growing in a more stable and productive environment where competitive exclusion is the most probable outcome of species interactions, whereas in the more stressful environment of boreal forests, beneficial interactions between species may be more important. The present work is also a framework for the analysis of large datasets in biodiversity–ecosystem functioning (B‐EF) research.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".