Complementarity of gymnosperms and angiosperms along an altitudinal temperature gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In seasonal tropical forests, evergreen–deciduous mixtures are more productive than monocultures because they intercept more light throughout the year, reflecting complementary resource use by functional groups possessing different traits. This suggests that temperate and boreal forests may also exhibit overyielding, due to the difference in phenology between gymnosperms and angiosperms. However, complementarity could also arise from differences in morphology between needle leaves and broad leaves, or facilitation by N‐fixing species. Alternatively, mixtures may be more productive simply because interspecific competition is less intense than intraspecific competition. We used forest inventory data to assess the complementarity of the main functional groups in Switzerland. We employed a trait‐based analysis of competition to determine whether: 1) trait differences reduce the intensity of competition between complementary functional groups, 2) complementarity is observed along a broad altitudinal temperature gradient. N‐fixing species facilitated the growth of non‐fixing species, such that 50/50 mixtures were 50% more productive than monocultures, though half the overyielding was due to the alleviation of intraspecific competition. In contrast, we found no evidence of complementarity between evergreen and deciduous species. For example, in stands where larch was mixed with other gymnosperms, there was no reduction in heterospecific competition among evergreen species, even though evergreens cast shade on one another throughout the year. In cold montane forests, broadleaf species reduced the suppression of needleleaf species, and vice versa. Thus, 50/50 mixtures of needleleaf and broadleaf species were 15% more productive than needleleaf monocultures. However, in warm lowland forests, broadleaf species exacerbated the suppression of needleleaf species, completely offsetting the positive effect that needleleaf species had on broadleaf species. In summary, we found no evidence of complementarity between evergreen and deciduous species, but needleleaf–broadleaf mixtures exhibited overyielding in cold montane forests, which is consistent with the stress gradient hypothesis, though the underlying mechanisms remain uncertain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".