Plant species size and density‐dependent effects on growth and survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question Experimental evidence suggests that competition among plant species is generally hierarchical and that relatively large species are at a competitive advantage when competition is predominantly above‐ground. However, regional species pools are dominated numerically by relatively small plant species, and small species generally have higher local densities of resident plants within natural communities. One explanation is that larger plant species suffer disproportionately more under effects of intra‐specific competition (i.e. greater density dependence). We tested this prediction using ten herbaceous plant species in a competition experiment. Location Kingston, Ontario, Canada, glasshouse. Methods Using a glasshouse experiment, we tested whether relatively large species suffer disproportionately more in monoculture relative to mixtures of all ten herbaceous plant species. We measured the effects of competition on biomass production and survival by monitoring both in monocultures and mixtures of our species. Results Larger plant species suffered more under intra‐specific relative to diffuse inter‐specific competition in terms of survival; however, the slope of this relationship was not significantly greater than one, indicating that larger species did not suffer disproportionate density‐dependent suppression. Conclusions Our results support a role for size in plant competition, but also indicate that this role is reduced because relatively larger species suffer greater density‐dependent mortality when competing with other, equally large plants. As such, size‐based competitive hierarchies may not function as clearly in natural systems because the increased negative density dependence for larger species contributes to balancing out competition across size hierarchies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".