Wild‐boar disturbance increases nutrient and C stores of geophytes in subalpine grasslands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Wild-boar soil disturbance (i.e., rooting) increases the abundance of some species of geophytes (i.e., plants with underground renewal buds) in upland meadows. However, the mechanisms that could lead to such enhanced prevalence remain unexplored. • METHODS: We analyzed the effects of wild-boar disturbance on the size, nutrient (N, P, K, C, and total ash), and nonstructural carbohydrate (soluble sugars, starch plus fructans, and total nonstructural carbohydrate) content of the storage organs of five taxa of upland geophytes. Results were explored in relation to the nutrient availability (total N, available P, and K) in the soil. • KEY RESULTS: Wild-boar rooting increased the size and the nutrient content of the storage organs of geophytes. Such enhanced storage was further promoted by rooting recurrence and intensity. Although we could not detect a direct impact of rooting on soil nutrient concentrations, plants were clearly N limited and such limitation was ameliorated in areas rooted by wild boar. Furthermore, plant-soil interactions for N were different in rooted areas, where plant N-concentrations responded positively to soil N. • CONCLUSIONS: Geophytes growing in rooted areas have an increased nutrient value, which may promote the revisit of wild boars to previously rooted areas, with further positive feed-back effects on plant quality. This plant-animal interaction may shape upland geophyte communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".