Species dynamics of epiphytic macrolichens in relation to time since fire and host tree species in boreal forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Questions (1) How is the abundance of individual epiphytic macrolichen species affected by host tree species and stand development, where canopy succession takes place in prolonged absence of stand‐replacing disturbance? (2) Do the associations between individual epiphytic macrolichen species and host tree species change through stand development? Location The central boreal forest of Canada (49°23′ N–49°36′ N, 89°31′ W–89°44′ W). Methods We estimated the percentage cover of epiphytic macrolichens on individual trees in 51 post‐fire successional stands of varying tree species composition, ranging from 7 to 209 yr since fire. We analysed how epiphytic macrolichen species cover on individual host tree species and community composition change with time since fire and host tree species using GLM and permutational multivariate ANOVA. Results Cover of individual epiphytic macrolichen species on the host tree species increased continuously, peaked at different time scales or gradually declined through stand development in which canopy succession took place. Some lichen species exhibited exclusive association to particular host tree species. Moreover, stand age‐related trends of the cover of some epiphytic macrolichen species differed with host species. Multivariate analysis indicated that host tree species at each stand development stage supported different epiphytic macrolichen species composition. Conclusion Epiphytic macrolichen species dynamics is strongly influenced by time since fire and host tree species identity. Host‐specific preferences and their interaction with time since fire suggest that epiphytic lichen composition on a particular host tree species is not merely a random sample of the local species pool, but rather related to their time since fire‐dependent preferences for their hosts.
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".