Comparing element composition of rock substratum with lichen communities and the fecundity of <i>Arctoparmelia</i> and <i>Xanthoparmelia</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substratum plays an important role in saxicolous lichen communities, providing a stable growth surface for long-term attachment and influencing the relative abundance of species. Saxicolous lichen communities consisting of Xanthoparmelia and Arctoparmelia were previously characterized using thallus cover on the substratum as well as lichen fecundity, but it was not known whether the substratum influenced lichen fecundity. The objectives of this paper were to compare variation in element concentrations among lichen communities, and to examine the correlation between elemental composition and percent cover and fecundity (numbers of apothecia, ascospores, and percent germination) of each of three lichens Arctoparmelia centrifuga, Xanthoparmelia viriduloumbrina, and X. cumberlandia. Percent cover and fecundity features were compared with the rock type and 21 elements from 37 transects. Element concentrations varied among communities, but the grassy rock community had significantly higher concentrations of elements than the mossy or treed rock communities. Positive correlations were present between fecundity and particular elements for the three species. This study provides insight into the complexity of the relationship between the geological composition of the substratum and saxicolous lichen biology.
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".