Field-based effects of allelopathy in invaded tallgrass prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allelopathic phytochemicals have been linked to invasion success, but their role in the invasion process remains unclear. Toxicity effects demonstrated with lab bioassays may be neutralized in soils, and their role in population expansion can be intertwined with nonallelopathic processes that also influence dispersal and establishment. Here, we use greenhouse experiments to test the soil-based impacts of invasive fine fescue ( Festuca rubra L.) on recruitment in tallgrass prairie. Fescue roots release the growth inhibitor m-tyrosine. Using root washes and fescue-conditioned soils to mimic field potency, we determined allelopathic impacts on recruitment, including intraspecific limitation. We also tested whether nonallelopathic factors (propagule pressure, disturbance, and fertility) influence invasion into constructed fescue and prairie mesocosms, and whether root washes inhibit arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. We observed significant negative effects of fescue soils and root washes on germination and seedling survival, including on fescue itself. Mesocosm invasion, however, was determined more by nonallelopathic mechanisms (propagule pressure and rapid growth). In prairie mesocosms, fescue invasion was higher than its own understory, with no effects of disturbance or fertility. Tallgrass species had difficulty establishing in all environments, regardless of propagule pressure. Impacts on AM fungal hyphal length and spore production were insignificant. Our results suggest that nonallelopathic traits may be sufficient to explain fescue invasion, with allelopathy likely emerging as a final "coup de grâce" for recruiting native grasses once dominance has been attained. Allelopathic species, including fine fescue, may thus not necessarily be invasive unless nonallelopathic traits facilitate establishment prior to the accumulation of soil-based toxins.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".