MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biodiversity enhances individual performance but does not affect survivorship in tropical trees

2008· article· en· W2131259142 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Potvin, Nicholas J. Gotelli

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityMonocultureBasal areaBiomass (ecology)BiologyPanamaTropicsEcologyEcosystemSurvivorship curveGlobal biodiversityAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed an analytical method that quantifies the relative contributions of mortality and individual growth to ecosystem function and analysed the results from the first biodiversity experiment conducted in a tropical tree plantation. In Sardinilla, central Panama, over 5000 tree seedlings were planted in monoculture and mixed-species plots. After 5 years of growth, mixed-species plots yielded, on average, 30-58% higher summed tree basal area than did monocultures. Simulation models revealed that the increased yield of mixed-species plots was due mostly to enhancement of individual tree growth. Although c. 1500 trees died during the experiment, mortality was highly species-specific and did not differ consistently between biodiversity treatments. Our results show that the effects of biodiversity on growth and mortality are uncoupled and that biodiversity affects total biomass and potentially self-thinning. The Sardinilla experiment suggests that mixed-species plantings may be a viable strategy for increasing timber yields and preserving biodiversity in tropical tree plantations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations200
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207