Species‐specific size vulnerabilities in a competitive arena: Nutrient heterogeneity and soil fertility alter plant competitive size asymmetries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The size dependence of competitive interactions is starting to be highlighted as an important driver of species diversity within communities; however, it is still unknown whether all species are equally impacted by size‐asymmetric competition and what resources drive it. Here, we test species‐specific responses to size‐asymmetric competition under various soil environments by manipulating plant size as well as soil fertility, nutrient heterogeneity and the initial suppression of microbial communities within a three‐species community. Competition was primarily size‐asymmetric; however, the degree to which competition was size‐asymmetric was species‐specific, where three out of five soil treatments resulted in size‐asymmetric competition in some species but size‐symmetric competition in others. Overall, soil fertility and nutrient heterogeneity altered the degree of size‐asymmetric competition, while the initial suppression of microbial communities had no effect. Contrary to past predictions, when they had an effect, increased soil fertility and the presence of a high‐quality patch reduced the degree of size‐asymmetric competition, while the presence of a low‐quality patch increased it. This suggests that the role nutrient heterogeneity plays on the degree of size‐asymmetric competition is dependent on the quality and location of the patch relative to an individual's neighbours. These findings challenge the current understanding that competition for soil resources is always size‐symmetric and demonstrate that species within the same community may not experience the same degree of size‐dependent competition. These differential responses suggest we must consider variations in tolerance and suppression between species during size‐dependent plant–plant interactions, which may promote species coexistence as all small individuals may not be negatively impacted during size‐dependent competition. A plain language summary is available for this article.
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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".