Plant belowground diversity and species segregation by depth in a semi-arid grassland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the relationships between below- and aboveground plant community diversity and composition is essential for understanding plant–soil linkages and feedbacks. Here we examine the patterns of belowground plant species richness, evenness, community composition, and individual species relative abundance with soil depth in a rough fescue grassland. Plant taxa belowground were identified via next-generation sequencing of the trnL intron. We found weak positive below–aboveground concordance in plant species composition demonstrating a general similarity between aboveground and belowground communities. The positive relationship between below- and aboveground plant species richness was stronger within the A horizon than in the B horizon, indicating that some species avoided rooting more deeply in the soil. For the most common graminoid species at the site, there was no evidence for depth-related rooting preferences for species of Carex (sedges) or Elymus (wheatgrasses), while the dominant native grass Festuca hallii preferentially rooted shallowly while the invasive grass Bromus inermis rooted more deeply. Differential rooting patterns among some of the dominant species suggests some degree of belowground niche differentiation may be important in structuring this plant community.
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 | 0.001 | 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".