Dominant plant facilitation can generate indirect competition in a South‐American desert plant community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Desert dominant plants commonly facilitate plant communities within their canopies. Although substantial research has examined the direct consequences of this effect, a mechanistic understanding of indirect effects mediated via beneficiary plants is still relatively limited. We tested the hypothesis that the net positive outcome of dominant plants on beneficiaries extends to a series of interactions including indirect competition or facilitation. To test this hypothesis, we aggregated two years of field surveys with a manipulative experiment. Location Atiquipa, Southern Peru. Methods We surveyed the understorey plant community of the dominant tree Caesalpinia spinosa and compared it to that of open microsites. Field manipulations included removal of plant neighbourhoods of two target annual species in the understorey of the dominant plant Caesalpinia spinosa and adjacent open microsites. In the surveys, we measured plant density, and in the removal experiment, plant height, fruit set, and biomass of the targets. Results In the surveys, density of Fuertisimalva peruviana , a target species, was negatively dependent on understorey neighbours’ density. Neighbourhood removal did not affect fruit set or biomass of Fuertisimalva peruviana in tree understories or open microsites. Neighbourhood removal around Plantago limensis increased biomass, plant height and fruit set, and changed the effect of the dominant tree from positive to negative for biomass. Conclusions Understorey plant neighbours can mediate the direct effects of dominant plants in deserts, but responses to these indirect effects can be species‐specific. The facilitative effects of dominant plants represent key coexistence mechanisms because they reduce stress and generate extended series of interactions not necessarily present in the open.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".