Per‐gram competitive effects and contrasting soil resource effects in grasses and woody plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant species differ in their competitive effects by decreasing resource availability via uptake, but in some cases may increase resource availability via non‐uptake pathways. Here we explore differences between grasses and woody plants in their competitive effects, and relate these to differences in resource effects. We grew five species each of grasses and woody plants in monocultures for 8 years. In the final two growing seasons, competitive effects were measured by growing transplants in all monocultures and in plots without neighbours. Total competitive effects were significantly greater for woody plants than that for grasses. In contrast, the competitive effect per gram of grasses was about 17 times greater than that of woody plants. For grasses, soil water (SoilW) and soil available N (SoilN) decreased significantly with increasing biomass. In contrast, for woody plants, SoilW and SoilN increased significantly with increasing biomass. The results suggest that the intense per‐gram competitive effects in grasses are related to the uptake of soil resources, and that the significantly lower per‐gram competitive effects of woody plants may be related to their positive effects on soil resources. Synthesis . The results link differences in competitive effects between grasses and woody plants to differences in the direction of their effects on soil resources. These differences may contribute to the entrainment of negative feedback in grasslands, excluding trees by means of strong competition, and the entrainment of positive feedback beneath woody plants establishing in grasslands, resulting in a state change from grassland to woody vegetation.
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".