Dominant native and non‐native graminoids differ in key leaf traits irrespective of nutrient availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Nutrient enrichment is associated with plant invasions and biodiversity loss. Functional trait advantages may predict the ascendancy of invasive plants following nutrient enrichment but this is rarely tested. Here, we investigate (a) whether dominant native and non‐native plants differ in important morphological and physiological leaf traits, (b) how their traits respond to nutrient addition, and (c) whether responses are consistent across functional groups. Location Australia, Europe, North America and South Africa. Time period 2007–2014. Major taxa studied Graminoids and forbs. Methods We focused on two types of leaf traits connected to resource acquisition: morphological features relating to light‐foraging surfaces and investment in tissue (specific leaf area, SLA) and physiological features relating to internal leaf chemistry as the basis for producing and utilizing photosynthate. We measured these traits on 503 leaves from 151 dominant species across 27 grasslands on four continents. We used an identical nutrient addition treatment of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) at all sites. Sites represented a broad range of grasslands that varied widely in climatic and edaphic conditions. Results We found evidence that non‐native graminoids invest in leaves with higher nutrient concentrations than native graminoids, particularly at sites where native and non‐native species both dominate. We found little evidence that native and non‐native forbs differed in the measured leaf traits. These results were consistent in natural soil fertility levels and nutrient‐enriched conditions, with dominant species responding similarly to nutrient addition regardless of whether they were native or non‐native. Main conclusions Our work identifies the inherent physiological trait advantages that can be used to predict non‐native graminoid establishment, potentially because of higher efficiency at taking up crucial nutrients into their leaves. Most importantly, these inherent advantages are already present at natural soil fertility levels and are maintained following nutrient enrichment.
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".