MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131154153 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12508

Nutrient foraging behaviour of four co‐occurring perennial grassland plant species alone does not predict behaviour with neighbours

2015· article· en· W2131154153 on OpenAlex
Gordon G. McNickle, Michael K. Deyholos, James F. Cahill

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta IngenuityAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsBiologyForagingNutrientPerennial plantCompetition (biology)GrasslandPlant ecologyRoot systemAgronomyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The spatial arrangement of nutrients and neighbours in soil influences plant growth and reproduction. Plants often respond to such stimuli through plasticity in root proliferation (root mass per soil volume), or the breadth of their root system. Here, we asked how plants adjust nutrient foraging strategies when grown alone or with neighbours. We asked (i) Does root proliferation into nutrient‐rich patches when plants are grown alone predict root proliferation when plants are grown with neighbours? (ii) What factors (nutrients or neighbours) best predict the probability of root placement at different soil locations? (iii) How does the spatial distribution of nutrients alter the degree to which neighbours suppress plant growth? To answer these questions, we grew four grassland species either as individual plants or in competition, in patchy or patch‐free soil, in a factorial design. We used genomic DNA to identify the spatial distribution of roots of each species when plants were grown in mixtures. The root foraging behaviour of individuals grown alone did not consistently predict behaviour in mixture. Specifically, (i) the behaviour of individually grown plants predicted behaviour of competing plants inside patches, but not in background soil. We observed over‐proliferation of roots in background soil relative to what was expected from plants grown alone. (ii) Neighbours were consistently the most important variable for predicting the placement of roots in soil and caused either an increase in root system breadth, or no change relative to alone. (iii) If a species experienced growth suppression when grown in competition, individuals experienced this more severely in patchy soil compared to patch‐free soil. Synthesis . Game theoretic models have predicted that under interspecific competition, over‐proliferation of roots in the presence of neighbours might occur for some species but not others. Our data are consistent with these predictions but more work is needed. Nutrient foraging studies have primarily focused on plants grown alone or assumed that plants do not respond separately to neighbours and nutrients. Our data call these practices into question and contribute to a growing understanding that plants integrate information about both nutrients and neighbours when placing roots in soil.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it