Aboveground competition influences density‐dependent effects of cordgrass on sediment biogeochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interspecific interactions between plants influence plant phenotype, distribution, abundance, and community structure. Each of these can, in turn, impact sediment biogeochemistry. Although the population and community level impacts of these interactions have been extensively studied, less is known about their effect on sediment biogeochemistry. This is surprising given that many plants are categorized as foundation species that exert strong control on community structure. In southern California salt marshes, we used clipping experiments to manipulate aboveground neighbor presence to study interactions between two dominant plants, Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and perennial pickleweed (Sarcocornia pacifica). We also measured how changes in cordgrass stem density influenced sediment biogeochemistry. Pickleweed suppressed cordgrass stem density but had no effect on aboveground biomass. For every cordgrass stem lost per square meter, porewater ammonium increased 0.3–1.0 µM. Thus, aboveground competition with pickleweed weakened the effects of cordgrass on sediment biogeochemistry. Predictions about plant–soil feedbacks, especially under future climate scenarios, will be improved when plant–plant interactions are considered, particularly those containing dominant and foundation 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".