Are epiphytic lichens in young forests limited by local dispersal?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether dispersal limitation is an important factor for the low abundance of epiphytic lichens in young boreal forests. The number of lichen thalli on branch sections of Pinus sylvestris was counted in five second-growth stands (35-78 years old) at increasing distances (10 m, 50 m, and 100 m) from adjacent old-growth stands (122-298 years old) presumed to function as propagule sources. The number of thalli displayed a pronounced decrease with increasing distance from the old growth in both foliose and pendulous fruticose lichens. The effect of distance was statistically significant in five out of six groups of lichens. The number of thalli at 100 m constituted 22% (Parmelia sulcata) to 61% (Vulpicida pinastri) of the number found near the forest edge (10 m). In the two most abundant groups, Bryoria (fruticose) and Hypogymnia (foliose), there was close to 50% reduction in thallus numbers. The thallus size distribution of both Bryoria and Hypogymnia was strongly skewed towards small thalli but the shape of the distributions was only marginally affected by distance to the old growth stands. Our data strongly suggest that both foliose and fruticose lichens are apparently limited by local dispersal in young boreal forests and that old-growth stands function as a source of lichen propagules. Consequently, efforts to enhance abundance of epiphytic lichens in managed boreal forests should include retention and creation of old stands throughout the landscape.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it