Mycorrhizal feedback is not associated with the outcome of competition in old‐field perennial plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The symbiosis between plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi is hypothesized to be an important contributor to plant–soil feedbacks, which can influence the outcome of inter‐specific competition. Mycorrhizal feedbacks can be conspecific, which affects individuals of the same species, or heterospecific, which affects individuals of a different species. When heterospecific feedbacks are more positive than conspecific feedbacks, heterospecific individuals are expected to outcompete conspecific individuals. To test this hypothesis, we quantified conspecific mycorrhizal feedback for Plantago lanceolata as a focal species, and heterospecific mycorrhizal feedbacks for 21 competitor old‐field species using mycorrhizae cultured with P. lanceolata . We quantified inter‐specific competition against the focal species by growing the 21 old‐field species with and without P. lanceolata in the presence of mycorrhizae cultured with P. lanceolata . Heterospecific and conspecific feedbacks were both positive, and average heterospecific feedbacks exceeded conspecific feedback by 75%. Competition suppressed P. lanceolata biomass by 14% and average competitor biomass was reduced by 44% in the presence of P. lanceolata , and these effects varied with competitor species identity. Contrary to predictions, the magnitude of heterospecific feedbacks did not predict the ability of competitor species to either suppress or resist suppression by P. lanceolata . Instead, the outcome of competition was significantly and positively correlated with intrinsic growth rate, measured as biomass of competitor species five weeks after germination in non‐inoculated conditions. Our findings suggest that species experiencing more positive mycorrhizal feedbacks than a competitor do not necessarily have a competitive advantage. Mycorrhizal mediated soil feedbacks may be less important than intrinsic differences in growth rate in determining competitive outcomes.
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) | 0.008 | 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".