Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39780373›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of botany2025

Flood-driven survival and growth of dominant C

Robert W Wernerehl, Thomas J Givnish

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Flood-driven survival and growth of dominant CAmerican journal of botany · 2025
    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.

Robert W WernerehlState Botanist, Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Westborough, 01581, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7171-4690
Thomas J GivnishDepartment of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 53706, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3166-4566

Funding

NSF IOS-1557509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseFive C

methodsWe tested these ideas with greenhouse flooding and drought experiments, outdoor mesocosm experiments, and a natural experiment involving a month-long flood in two wet-mesic prairies.

resultsBouteloua promptly succumbed to inundation, so flooding intolerance likely excludes it from wet and wet-mesic prairies. Competition is likely to exclude short-statured Bouteloua from productive mesic sites. Schizachyrium is excluded from wet prairies by low flooding tolerance, demonstrated by all experiments. Sorghastrum had low flooding tolerance in both greenhouse and natural experiments, suggesting that physiological intolerance excludes it from wet prairies. Spartina had by far the greatest growth under the wettest mesocosm conditions; this and comparisons of species growth in monocultures vs. mixtures suggests that competition helps it dominate wet prairies. Indeed, quadrat presence of Spartina increased by 57% two years after flooding of two prairies, while that of upland grasses declined by 44%. The high flooding tolerance, lack of significant differences from other species in drought tolerance, and tall stature of Andropogon suggest that broad physiological tolerance combined with competitive ability allows it to thrive across the prairie moisture gradient.

conclusionsFlooding helps shape the distributions of dominant prairie grasses, and its effects may become more important as extreme rain events continue to increase.

Indexed as

FloodsGrasslandPoaceaeWaterDroughtsWaterecological distributionsflooding toleranceLD50logit analysisspecies sortingwater table depth

Identifiers

PMID39780373
PMCPMC11744443

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.