Nutrient addition drives declines in grassland species richness primarily via enhanced species loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Declines in grassland diversity in response to nutrient addition are a general consequence of global change. This decline in species richness may be driven by multiple underlying processes operating at different time‐scales. Nutrient addition can reduce diversity by enhancing the rate of local extinction via competitive exclusion, or by reducing the rate of colonization by constraining the pool of species able to colonize under new conditions. Partitioning net change into extinction and colonization rates will better delineate the long‐term effect of global change in grasslands. We synthesized changes in richness in response to experimental fertilization with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium with micronutrients across 30 grasslands. We quantified changes in local richness, colonization, and extinction over 8–10 years of nutrient addition, and compared these rates against control conditions to isolate the effect of nutrient addition from background dynamics. Total richness at steady state in the control plots was the sum of equal, relatively high rates of local colonization and extinction. On aggregate, 30%–35% of initial species were lost and the same proportion of new species were gained at least once over a decade. Absolute turnover increased with site‐level richness but was proportionately greater at lower‐richness sites relative to starting richness. Loss of total richness with nutrient addition, especially N in combination with P or K, was driven by enhanced rates of extinction with a smaller contribution from reduced colonization. Enhanced extinction and reduced colonization were disproportionately among native species, perennials, and forbs. Reduced colonization plateaued after the first few (<5) years after nutrient addition, while enhanced extinction continued throughout the first decade. Synthesis . Our results indicate a high rate of colonizations and extinctions underlying the richness of ambient communities and that nutrient enhancement drives overall declines in diversity primarily by exclusion of previously established species. Moreover, enhanced extinction continues over long time‐scales, suggesting continuous, long‐term community responses and a need for long‐term study to fully realize the extinction impact of increased nutrients on grassland composition.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".