Flooding stress influences productivity and modulates biodiversity effects in experimental grassland communities, shaping biodiversity–productivity relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Biodiversity loss and increasing extreme weather events disrupt the functioning of ecosystems and thus their ability to provide services. While the interplay among various climatic constraints, diversity and productivity has received increasing attention in the last decades, the role of flooding has been overlooked. METHODS: In a greenhouse experiment, we manipulated species richness and water regimes to evaluate the influence of flooding on species diversity-productivity relationships. We measured biomass production and partitioned net biodiversity effects into complementarity and selection effects. To link changes in biodiversity effects to underlying mechanisms, we evaluated the contribution of species richness, species identity, functional diversity and community-level traits. RESULTS: Under flooding, biomass production decreased, and biodiversity effects were less frequently positive. By reducing the incidence of positive complementarity effects, flooding promoted a preponderance of selection effects. Flooding further favored competitive displacement by Phalaris arundinacea; balanced contributions to selection effects from all functional groups at field capacity subsided under flooding when P. arundinacea became the single dominant species. As a result, its acquisitive leaf trait attributes contributed more to selection effects and biomass production under flooding, while root traits contributed less to complementarity effects at field capacity. CONCLUSIONS: As an environmental stressor, flooding promoted the dominance of tolerant species and reduced the incidence of complementary species interactions in the experimental plant communities, clearly modulating the linkage between diversity and productivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".