Lichen fecundity on the Precambrian Shield: an alternative life history strategy approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symbiotic interactions are widespread in nature, but the relationship between life history, fecundity, and habitat specificity has been underexplored. This study investigated the life history strategies of foliose saxicolous lichens relative to their surrounding communities. Macrolichens were collected from 39 transects in Manitoba and Ontario. Frequency and percentage of ground cover of macrolichens, environmental variables, and numbers of apothecia and ascospores were recorded. Lichen assemblages were characterized using species similarity in a cluster analysis and ordination methods and were defined into communities using analysis of variance of the biotic variables among assemblages. Lichen life history strategies were inferred from community features, lichen fecundity, and morphological features. The general linear model determined which environmental variables may have influenced fecundity. The 81 species of macrolichens present in three lichen communities differed in species richness, with low species richness in the open mossy rock community, moderate in the grassy rock community, and high in the treed rock community. Three foliose saxicolous lichens dominated particular communities, and the life history strategy was characterized as competitive for Arctoparmelia centrifuga (L.) Hale, stress tolerant for Xanthoparmelia viriduloumbrina (Gyel.) Lendemer, and ruderal generalist for Xanthoparmelia cumberlandia (Gyel.) Hale. The proportion of sexual and asexual reproductive propagules for macrolichens showed uniformity between communities despite a significant difference in species richness. The study provides insights into the ecology of saxicolous lichens growing in the boreal forest and a characterization of lichen communities, and it shows how morphologically similar lichens can exhibit different life history strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".