Competitive size asymmetry, not intensity, is linked to species loss and gain in a native grassland community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competition is often highlighted as a major force influencing plant species diversity. However, there are multiple facets of competition (e.g., strength, intransitivity, and size asymmetry) that may have independent and differential impacts on diversity, making understanding the degree to which competition structures communities difficult. Unfortunately, field-based experiments that decouple multiple facets of competition are lacking, limiting our ability to test theoretical frameworks and reducing understanding of the actual linkages among competition and coexistence. Here, we experimentally manipulate the size structure of local grassland communities to examine the relative impacts of competitive size asymmetry (i.e., competitive advantage based on relative size) and intensity (i.e., mean effect of neighbors on plant growth) on species loss and gain. Increased competitive size asymmetry was associated with increased species loss and decreased species gain, while no relationship was found between competitive intensity and species loss and gain. Furthermore, the probability of loss was not dependent on a species initial size, suggesting that small species may not always be the losers of size-asymmetric interactions. Instead, loss was dependent on species rarity, where loss was higher for rare species. Overall, these results suggest that competitive size asymmetry may be more important for species loss than intensity in some plant communities and demonstrates the importance of decoupling different aspects of competition to better understand their drivers and ecological consequences.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".