Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33005344›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2020

Small differences in root distributions allow resource niche partitioning.

Andrew Kulmatiski, Karen H Beard, Martin C Holdrege, Edmund C February

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew KulmatiskiDepartment of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center Utah State University Logan UT USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9977-5508
Karen H BeardDepartment of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center Utah State University Logan UT USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4997-2495
Martin C HoldregeDepartment of Wildland Resources and the Ecology Center Utah State University Logan UT USA.
Edmund C FebruaryDepartment of Botany University of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9790-0395
Utah State University · USUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep roots have long been thought to allow trees to coexist with shallow-rooted grasses. However, data demonstrating how root distributions affect water uptake and niche partitioning are uncommon.We describe tree and grass root distributions using a depth-specific tracer experiment six times over two years in a subtropical savanna, Kruger National Park, South Africa. These point-in-time measurements were then used in a soil water flow model to simulate continuous water uptake by depth and plant growth form (trees and grasses) across two growing seasons. This allowed estimates of the total amount of water a root distribution could absorb as well as the amount of water a root distribution could absorb in excess of the other rooting distribution (i.e., unique hydrological niche).Most active tree and grass roots were in shallow soils: The mean depth of water uptake was 22 cm for trees and 17 cm for grasses. Slightly deeper rooting distributions provided trees with 5% more soil water than the grasses in a drier season, but 13% less water in a wetter season. Small differences also provided each rooting distribution (tree or grass) with unique hydrological niches of 4 to 13 mm water.The effect of rooting distributions has long been inferred. By quantifying the depth and timing of water uptake, we demonstrated how even small differences in rooting distributions can provide plants with resource niches that can contribute to species coexistence. Differences in total water uptake and unique hydrological niche sizes were small in this system, but they indicated that tradeoffs in rooting strategies can be expected to contribute to tree and grass coexistence because 1) competitive advantages change over time and 2) plant growth forms always have access to a soil resource pool that is not available to the other plant growth form.

Indexed as

ecohydrologyhydrus 1Disotopeniche partitioningtracertwo‐layer hypothesiswater use

Identifiers

PMID33005344
PMCPMC7520225
OpenAlexW3082650370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.