Nitrogen uptake and biomass resprouting show contrasting relationships with resource acquisitive and conservative plant traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Questions Disturbances can cause fluctuations in resource availability that influence plant performance. In systems with such dynamics, inter‐specific differences in resource capture may promote co‐existence by partitioning competition between periods of high or low resource availability. Such differences in resource use strategy have been described with the Plant Economics Spectrum, which hypothesizes that functions related to resource use and processing should co‐vary and can be predicted from plant traits. In pyrogenic systems, fires are associated with short‐term increases in soil nitrogen availability (“pulses”), and thus contribute to a fluctuating resource supply. In this study, we sought to understand whether plants differed in their capacity to capture a nitrogen pulse, and to what extent that ability influenced biomass recovery. Methods In two consecutive greenhouse experiments, we tested whether two functions — nitrogen assimilation (Experiment 1) and biomass regrowth after disturbance (Experiment 2) — co‐varied, and how each function corresponded to leaf and root functional traits. Results In Experiment 1, four co‐occurring shrubs differed in their temporal patterns of nitrogen uptake, and nitrogen uptake was positively correlated with resource‐acquisitive leaf traits (leaf percent nitrogen). In Experiment 2, the biomass regrowth of a resource acquisitive and a resource conservative species was the same regardless of competitive environment (i.e., when grown in pots of mixed‐species or same‐species pairs). Rather than being associated with the capture of new nitrogen, biomass resprouting of both species was associated with the size of below‐ground resource stores and specific root length. Conclusions Our work suggests that resource acquisition and processing may be decoupled from each other after disturbance, and also highlights the need for explicit tests of the relationships between root traits and above‐ground plant function.
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 | 0.001 | 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".