Interpreting Pattern in Plant-Soil Feedback Experiments with Co-occurring Invasive Species: A Graphical Framework and Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the ubiquity of multiple plant invasions, the underlying mechanisms of invasive-invasive interactions remain relatively unknown. Given the importance of plant–soil feedback (PSF) in contributing to single species invasions, it may be an important factor influencing invasive–invasive species interactions as well. PSF between multiple invaders has rarely been examined, but could inform the nature of invasive–invasive interactions and advance understanding of how multiple invaders impact plant communities. Alternative mechanisms of plant invasions include novel weapons and enemy escape. We develop graphical PSF predictions based on these mechanisms and other possible invasive–invasive dynamics. Comparing these predictions to observed results is a first step in interpreting PSF among co-occurring invasive species. We illustrate this with a case study of net pairwise PSF among three common invaders of tallgrass prairie: Lotus corniculatus (birdsfoot trefoil), Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass), and Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle). We found that feedback among all pairwise combinations of these invasive species was neutral. Neutral feedback can arise from a mutual lack of soil borne pathogens, consistent with the enemy escape hypothesis, although we cannot rule out shared benefit from generalist mutualists. While both facilitative and competitive interactions among these three species have previously been shown, our data suggest that such interactions are unlikely to operate through a legacy effect of PSF. Our results inform follow-up PSF experiments that would help to confirm the existence and nature of PSF interactions among these species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".