Legacy effects of soil homogenization on tallgrass prairie restoration: toward resolved understanding of the relationship between soil heterogeneity and plant species diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within plant communities, niche‐based species sorting can occur among distinct soil patches (microsites), increasing coexistence and diversity. Microsite edges (microedges) may also offer additional niche space. Therefore, in recently abandoned croplands, which often have uniform soils caused by a legacy of tillage (soil homogenization), the plant species diversity of future restoration efforts may be reduced. We conducted an experiment during the early establishment phase (3 years) of a tallgrass prairie restoration on former cropland to determine if soil homogenization decreases species diversity and alters community composition, and if microedges offer additional niche space. Heterogeneous plots with sand‐ or woodchip‐enriched patches were compared to plots made up of the same components, but distributed homogeneously, and pits and mounds were compared to flat topsoil. Homogenization decreased diversity in flat topsoil plots relative to pit plots and increased diversity in woodchip plots. In both cases, the treatments with the lowest canopy cover and greatest plant density had the greatest diversity. Sand and topographic homogenization decreased diversity, but when a drought occurred in year two, the effect was suppressed in the sand treatment and magnified in the pit plots. Microedges had properties unique from adjacent patches. Overall, variability in heterogeneity–diversity relationships was affected by interactions with plant growth patterns and environmental conditions. Our results indicate that while the addition of contrasting soil microsites has the potential to promote increased diversity in grassland restoration on former cropland, the patch components and design must be optimized to achieve this management goal.
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".