Interspecific interactions and biomass allocation among grassland plant species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a handful of studies have shown how interspecific interactions may influence plant shoot to root ratios, the issue of how these interactions influence biomass partitioning among coexisting plant species remains largely unexplored. In this study, we determined whether a given plant species could induce other plant species to allocate relative biomass to each of four zones (aboveground, and three soil depth layers) in a different manner to what they would otherwise, and whether this may influence the nature of competitive or facilitative interactions amongst coexisting plant species. We used a glasshouse study in which mixtures and monocultures of ten grassland plant species were grown in cylindrical pots to determine the effects of plant species mixtures versus monocultures on the production of shoots and of roots of other species for each of three soil depths. Across all experiments, stimulation of production in mixtures was far less common than suppression of production. Different plant species shifted their allocation to shoots or roots at different depths, suggesting that interspecific interactions can either: (1) increase the ratio of deep to shallow roots, perhaps because competition reduces root growth in the uppermost part of the soil profile; or (2) decrease this ratio by reducing plant vigour to such an extent that the plant cannot produce roots that can reach deep enough to exploit resources at lower depths. Further, these results suggest that there are instances in which competition may have the potential to enforce resource partitioning between coexisting plant species by inducing different species to root at different depths to each other.
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".