MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4381165224 · doi:10.1007/s11258-023-01330-4

Development of negative soil feedback by an invasive plant near the northern limit of its invaded range

2023· article· en· W4381165224 on OpenAlexafffund
Vicki Mengyuan Zhang, Peter M. Kotanen

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSoil waterNative plantBiomass (ecology)EcologyPlant ecologyIntroduced speciesBiodiversityEnvironmental sciencePlant communityInvasive speciesSubarctic climateBiologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the Canadian subarctic, the non-native plantLinaria vulgarishas invaded human-disturbed soils in and around the town of Churchill, Manitoba (58.8ºN), but for decades has failed to spread into nearby tundra and taiga communities. One possible explanation for this stasis might be greater resistance by soil communities in uninvaded areas relative to areas where this plant has been long established; however, no local evidence for such plant-soil feedbacks yet exists. In one of the first studies to investigate the role of plant-soil feedbacks in an invasion at high latitudes, we plantedL. vulgarisin soil serially inoculated with live and sterilized field-collected soil that was sampled either from invaded or uninvaded plots within anthropogenically-disturbed areas, and measured plant performance (biomass) over three greenhouse iterations. We also conducted basic soil chemical analyses to determine whether pH, and carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous contents differ between invaded and uninvaded areas. There was no initial difference in plant biomass between soil inoculation treatments in the first two iterations. However, by iteration 3, we found that sterilization significantly increasedL. vulgarisbiomass in invaded soils, indicating feedback gradually becomes more negative in invaded soils compared to uninvaded soils. Soil chemistry did not differ significantly between invaded and uninvaded soils, though there was a tendency for invaded soils to contain slightly more carbon and nitrogen. These results reject the possibility thanL. vulgarisis absent from uncolonized sites because their soil communities resist invasion. Instead, they provide evidence thatL. vulgarisis inhibited by plant-soil feedbacks in invaded soils, while feedbacks in native-dominated soils do not represent a barrier to further local spread. Thus, explanations for the restriction of this species to anthropogenically modified areas must lie elsewhere.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePlant Ecology→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→