Data from: Belowground competition in forest and prairie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis that the intensity of belowground competition varies with community standing crop was tested in forest and prairie in central Canada. Three plots were studied in each habitat. Forest had significantly higher soil nitrate, ammonium, water, and root biomass than prairie, but significantly lower root:shoot ratios. Transplants of a grass (Bouteloua gracilis) and a tree (Populus deltoides) were grown singly for one summer in both habitats with live neighbor roots either absent or present. Live neighbor roots were removed by cutting roots along the perimeter of a 10 cm diameter circle to a depth of 15 cm and then inserting a plastic tube (10 cm diameter, 15 cm long) vertically into the soil. Transplants grown with live neighbor roots also had neighbor roots cut along the perimeter of a 10 cm diameter circle, but no tube was installed. There were ten replicates of each combination of species and root treatment in each plot. The aboveground biomass of transplants showed a significant interactive effect between habitat and competition treatment. Biomass was significantly lower in the presence of neighbor roots in prairie, but not in forest. Neighbor roots significantly decreased the survivorship of the tree but not the grass. Belowground competition was most intense in prairie, where the supply of soil resources was lowest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
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".