Salix transect of Europe: latitudinal patterns in willow diversity from Greece to arctic Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Willows (Salix spp.) are ecosystem "foundation species" that are hosts to large numbers of associated insects. Determining their patterns of distribution across Europe is therefore of interest for understanding the spatial distribution of associated fauna. The aim of this study was to record species composition at multiple sites on a long latitudinal gradient (megatransect) across Europe as a baseline for the future detailed analysis of insect fauna at these sites. In this way we used willow stands as comparable mesocosms in which to study floristic and faunistic changes with latitude across Europe. NEW INFORMATION: To determine spatial patterning of an ecologically important group on a latitudinal gradient across Europe, we sampled willows at the stand level in 42 sites, approximately 100 km apart, from the Aegean (38.8°N) to the Arctic Ocean (70.6°N), but at a similar longitude (21.2 to 26.1°E). The sites were predominantly lowland (elevations 1 to 556 metres amsl, median = 95 m) and wet (associated with rivers, lakes, drainage ditches or wet meadows). The median number of willow taxa (species and hybrids) per stand was four, and varied from one to nine. There is a progressive increase in willow diversity from south to north with the median number of taxa per stand in southern Europe being three, and in northern Europe six. A total of 20 willow species were recorded, along with 12 hybrids. The most widespread willow in the transect was Salix alba L. (occurring in 20 sites out of 42) followed by S. triandra L. (15 sites), S. caprea L., S. phylicifolia L. (14 sites) and S. myrsinifolia Salisb., Salix ×fragilis L. (13 sites). Voucher specimens from this study are deposited in the herbaria of the Natural History Museum (BM) and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (K). These samples provide a "snapshot" of willow diversity along a latitudinal gradient and an indication of the geographically changing taxonomic diversity that is presented to willow-feeding herbivores across Europe. It is anticipated that further papers will examine the insect fauna collected from these sites as part of this study.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".