Species with larger body size do not dominate neighbourhood biomass production in old‐field vegetation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Competitive ability in plants is defined traditionally by a ‘size advantage’ hypothesis – i.e. larger species are generally expected to be more successful under competition because of greater capacity for resource capture, and thus capacity to deny resources to neighbours (e.g. through shading). We therefore tested the prediction (for crowded herbaceous vegetation) that species with a larger maximum potential body size (dry mass) should: (1) have generally increased resident plant abundance (i.e. more rooted units), resulting from more successful recruitment of reproductive and/or clonal offspring; and (2) account for a relatively large proportion of the standing biomass within crowded neighbourhoods. Location Queen's University Biological Station (QUBS), Chaffey's Locks, Ontario, Canada. Methods A field experiment was used to record neighbourhood above‐ground biomass (dry mass) and resident plant abundance data for species within replicate plots in an old‐field meadow community – combined with body size metrics recorded for the same species in an earlier study at the same field site. Results The results, at both the community and plot level, showed that resident plant abundance was generally higher (as expected) for species that had more total neighbourhood (plot) biomass harvested in the previous year. However, these species tended to be relatively small, with relatively small minimum reproductive threshold size – not those with relatively large maximum potential body size. Conclusions These results suggest that in crowded vegetation, bigger species are not more successful competitors in terms of offspring recruitment/numerical abundance, nor do they have a larger contribution to neighbourhood biomass. Smaller species are contributing at least as much biomass as bigger species to their total neighbourhood biomass, in part because of their smaller minimum reproductive threshold size. These smaller species therefore have greater ‘reproductive economy’, which means that they are more likely to produce at least some offspring when conditions are especially crowded.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".