Shoot, but not root, competition reduces community diversity in experimental mesocosms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 We used a mesocosm experiment to determine the how both the intensity and relative importance of root and shoot competition, and their interactions, influence the structure of plant communities. Experimental communities of nine grassland plant species were planted under different levels of soil fertility. Root, shoot, and total competition intensity and relative importance, along with plant community structure (evenness) were measured in each mesocosm. Structural equation modelling was used to separate the direct and indirect influences of root, shoot and total competition on species evenness. 2 Increasing shoot competition intensity and importance reduced plant community evenness, while increases in root competition intensity and importance had no direct effects on evenness. Root competition intensity and importance indirectly reduced plant community evenness because increased root competition intensity increased shoot competition intensity. 3 We propose that the separate influences of shoot competition and root–shoot competition interactions on community structure can be integrated through a new state variable: the total size-asymmetry of competition. We propose that there is a direct relationship between the overall size-asymmetry of competition and the influence of competition on plant community structure. 4 Synthesis. This study provides the first experimental evidence that, even though there are no direct links between the intensity or relative importance of root competition and plant community structure, root competition may indirectly structure communities through root–shoot competition interactions. Integrating root and shoot competition as competitive size-asymmetry can explain why intense root competition can be unimportant for community structure, while relatively less intense shoot competition and root–shoot competition interactions can have strong effects on plant community composition and diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".