Effects of nitrogen availability on the growth of native grasses exotic weeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have shown that high nitrogen availability encourages the community dominance of exotic, weedy species. Other researchers have attempted to reduce existing exotic species infestations by reducing soil nitrogen availability. We tested the hypothesis that exotic weeds and native species differ in their response to nitrogen availability, predicting that the exotics would have a much more positive response than the natives at high nitrogen levels but that natives would better tolerate low nitrogen levels. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a greenhouse experiment investigating the aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, height, and aboveground tissue nitrogen concentration response of 2 North American native plant species, blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis H.B.K. Lag.) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii (Rybd.) A. Love), and 4 exotic species, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.), and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.), to 5 levels of nitrogen availability, 0 g N/m2, 1 g N/m2, 4 g N/m2, 7g N/m2, and 10 g N/m2. We grew single individuals of each species from seed in 3 liter pots in the greenhouse for 75 days. The exotics and natives did differ in their response to nitrogen availability, but not in the predicted manner. The exotics did not have a more positive response to nitrogen availability than the native species, and the species with the poorest response was an exotic. There were no differences between the exotic and native species at any level of nitrogen availability in root:shoot ratios, total biomass, or percent leaf tissue nitrogen, but the native species as a group gained more height than the exotics at every level of nitrogen availability. Our data do not show a generalizable relationship between exotic or native plant groups and growth response to nitrogen.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".