Peer Review #2 of "A meta-analysis of plant facilitation in coastal dune systems: responses, regions, and research gaps (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical studies in salt marshes, arid, and alpine systems support the hypothesis that facilitation between plants is an important ecological process in severe or 'stressful' environments. Coastal dunes are both abiotically stressful and frequently disturbed systems. Facilitation has been documented, but the evidence to date has not been synthesized. We did a systematic review with meta-analysis to highlight general research gaps in the study of plant interactions in coastal dunes and examine if regional and local factors influence the magnitude of facilitation in these systems. The 32 studies included in the systematic review were done in coastal dunes located in 13 countries around the world but the majority was in the temperate zone (63%). Most of the studies adopt only an observational approach to make inferences about facilitative interactions whereas only 28% of the studies used both observational and experimental approaches. Among the factors we tested, only geographic region mediates the occurrence of facilitation more broadly in coastal dune systems. The presence of a neighbor positively influenced growth and survival in the tropics whereas in temperate and subartic regions the effect was neutral for both response variables. We found no evidence that climatic and local factors, such as life-form and life stage of interacting plants affect the magnitude of facilitation in coastal dunes. Overall, conclusions about plant facilitation in coastal dunes depend on the response variable measured, and more broadly, on the geographic region examined.
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 | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".