Soil biotic quality lacks spatial structure and is positively associated with fertility in a northern grassland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When placing roots in the soil, plants integrate information about soil nutrients, plant neighbours and beneficial/detrimental soil organisms. While the fine‐scale spatial heterogeneity in soil nutrients and plant neighbours have been described previously, virtually nothing is known about the spatial structure in soil biotic quality (measured here as a soil Biota‐Induced plant Growth Response, or BIGR), or its correlation with nutrients or neighbours. Such correlations could imply trade‐offs in root placement decisions. Theory would predict that soil BIGR is (1) negatively related to soil fertility and (2) associated with plant community structure, such that plants influence soil biota (and vice versa) through plant–soil feedbacks. We would also expect that since plants have species‐specific impacts on soil organisms, spatially homogeneous plant communities should also homogenize soil BIGR. Here, we test these hypotheses in a semi‐arid grassland by (1) characterizing the spatial structure of soil BIGR at a scale experienced by an individual plant and (2) correlating it to soil abiotic properties and plant community structure. We do so in two types of plant communities: (1) low‐diversity patches dominated by an invasive grass ( Bromus inermis Leyss.) and (2) patches covered mostly by native vegetation, with the expectation that dominance by Bromus would homogenize soil BIGR. Soil BIGR was spatially heterogeneous, but not autocorrelated. This was true in both vegetation types ( Bromus ‐invaded vs. native patches). Conversely, soil abiotic properties and plant community structure were frequently spatially autocorrelated at similar scales. Also, contrary to many studies, we found a positive correlation between soil BIGR and soil fertility. Soil BIGR was also associated with plant community structure. Synthesis . The positive correlation between soil BIGR and some soil nutrient levels suggests that plants do not necessarily trade‐off between foraging for nutrients vs. biotic interactions: nutritional cues could rather indicate the presence of beneficial soil biota. Moreover, the spatial structure in plant communities, coupled with their correlation with soil BIGR, jointly suggest that plant–soil feedbacks operate at local scales in the field: this has been identified in modelling studies as an important driver of plant coexistence.
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) | 0.000 | 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".