Seasonal patterns of root and shoot interactions in an alpine meadow on the Tibetan Plateau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have showed that the balance between negative and positive plant–plant interactions shifted along environmental gradients. But little is known how the positive or negative plant–plant interactions varied with temporal fluctuating habitat conditions and plant ontogenetic phases. In a 2-year experiment, the four perennial grasses (Kobresia humilis, Stipa aliena, Elymus nutans and Saussurea superba) were grown under four interaction treatments (no root or shoot interaction, only shoot interaction, only root interaction, root and shoot interaction). Intensity of above- and belowground interactions is proposed to vary with the fluctuation of seasonal climatic conditions and soil available nutrients. Here we report measurements of above- and belowground interactions during entire growing season. Correlation between plant interaction intensity and seasonal soil available N as well as habitat climate conditions was also performed. Our experiment found that root interactions had negative effect on plant growth for the four species during growing season. However, both negative and positive shoot interactions occurred among the four species. Despite there being shoot facilitative effect for E. nutans and S. superba, the full interaction was negative, suggested that root interaction take more important role on plant growth than that of shoot interaction. The interaction between root and shoot effect varied as a function of species identity and growth phases. The weak correlation of plant interaction intensity to habitat environmental factors suggested that plant ontogenetic characteristics may be primary factors causing temporal variation in plant interaction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".