Size-biased compositional impacts of small mammal herbivores in an old-field plant community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant species height (mature height), which strongly correlates with other measures of size, is widely considered an important functional trait. Taller species contribute greatly to ecosystem function and are frequently identified as strong competitors. Additionally, important ecological processes like self-thinning scale with plant species size. In spite of the clear functional importance of species size, evidence for size-based plant community assembly rules has been scant. While herbivory can be species specific and there are reasons why herbivores may target larger plant species, it is unknown whether herbivory has size-biased impacts on species composition. In an old-field plant community, we compared plant species composition in herbivore exclusion (caged) and control plots over five years to test whether herbivore activity favors species at one end of the size spectrum. Across 5 years, smaller species were modestly, but consistently, underrepresented in caged plots compared to control plots. This underrepresentation of relatively smaller plant species in caged plots, where seedling herbivory was greatly diminished, was driven by lower small plant species richness and abundance in those plots; the abundance and richness of tall species did not differ across treatments. Our findings demonstrate that reducing herbivore activity in our study community modestly but consistently altered plant species composition, slightly favoring larger species. There was no evidence that larger species are preferentially targeted by herbivores. Some research suggests, although it will require further investigation, that seedling herbivory, regardless of the species eaten, produces vegetation gaps that small plant species are more successful in colonizing.
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) | 0.001 | 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".