MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6901877944 · doi:10.60692/tjtnm-vp724

Evolution of species complementarity in response to drought in a grassland biodiversity experiment

2021· article· en· W6901877944 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityEcosystemComplementarity (molecular biology)GrasslandClimate changeGrassland ecosystemProductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Growing threats from extreme climatic events and biodiversity loss have raised concerns about their interactive consequences for ecosystem functioning. Evidence suggests that biodiversity is crucial to buffer ecosystem functioning facing climatic extremes. However, whether evolutionary processes in species mixtures underpin such biodiversity-dependent stabilizing effects remains elusive. We tested this hypothesis by exposing experimental mixtures of grassland species to eight recurrent summer droughts vs. control in the field. Seed offspring of 12 species were subsequently grown individually, in monocultures or in 2-species mixtures and subjected to a novel drought event in the glasshouse. Comparing mixtures with monocultures, drought-selected plants showed greater between-species complementarity than ambient-selected plants when recovering from the drought event, which led to greater biodiversity effects on community productivity and better recovery of drought-selected mixtures after the drought. These findings suggest biodiversity can buffer the impacts of extreme climatic events through evolution of species complementarity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→