Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32813070›Full record

ArticleOecologia2020

Differential stoichiometric homeostasis and growth in two native and two invasive C

Joshua T Harvey, A Joshua Leffler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joshua T HarveyDepartment of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University, Brookings, USA. josh.harvey@agnet.tamu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2195-8475
A Joshua LefflerDepartment of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University, Brookings, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3389-2493
South Dakota State University · US

Funding

Sigma Xi (US) G2017031593424119
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global changes interact with plant invasions by differentially impacting native and invasive species. For example, invasive plants often benefit from eutrophication to a greater degree than native plants. While this is well-documented, a broad, trait-based explanation for this phenomenon is lacking. Recent research shows that stoichiometric homeostasis predicts plant species responses to eutrophication and drought, but this research has not been extended into an invasion ecology paradigm. We tested the hypotheses that stoichiometric homeostasis would differ between native and invasive plants, that expressed levels of stoichiometric homeostasis would respond to water availability, and that differences in stoichiometric homeostasis would match differences in growth. In a nutrient and water manipulation study, we found that stoichiometric homeostasis differed between native grasses (Elymus canadensis and Pascopyrum smithii) and invasive grasses (Agropyron cristatum and Bromus inermis), that differences in stoichiometric homeostasis matched differences in growth in well-watered grasses, and that expressed levels of stoichiometric homeostasis were stable across the water supply treatments. These results suggest that invasive plants maintain growth advantages over native plants in eutrophic conditions because of differential homeostatic requirements. We argue that stoichiometric homeostasis is therefore a useful functional trait to explain and predict differential native and invasive plant responses to global change.

Indexed as

Introduced SpeciesPoaceaeBromusHomeostasisPlantsDroughtEutrophicationInvasionInvasive grassesStoichiometric homeostasis

Identifiers

PMID32813070
OpenAlexW3067874240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.