Phylogenetic dependence of plant–soil feedback promotes rare species in a subtropical forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Negative plant–soil feedback (PSF) has been widely considered to be a primary mechanism maintaining plant diversity. Previous studies have shown that rare species suffer stronger negative conspecific PSF than common species, but it remains unclear how rare species persist if they are more strongly self‐limited. Here, we used shade‐house and field experiments to test soil feedback effects of phylogenetically related species on seedling growth, with seven species of contrasting local abundance, in a subtropical forest, China. We quantified the PSF of conspecifics and heterospecifics and assessed the phylogenetic dependence of the feedback. Both experiments showed that although rare species suffered strong negative PSF in soils of conspecifics or phylogenetically close heterospecifics, no such feedback was found in the soils of phylogenetically distant heterospecifics. In contrast, common species had no or weak negative conspecific PSF but strong heterospecific soil PSF. Synthesis. The variation in the phylogenetically dependent PSF among rare and common species evidenced in this study ensures that rare species would grow well in the neighbourhood of phylogenetically distant heterospecifics but do poorly under their own or close relatives, while common species perform relatively well in their own neighbourhood but poorly in other's neighbourhood. This phylogenetically dependent PSF facilitates the rare–common species coexistence in communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".