Effects of forest characteristics on the abundance of alectorioid lichens in northern Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative knowledge of the abundance of epiphytic alectorioid lichens (Bryoria spp., Alectoria spp., and Usnea spp.) is important when evaluating the carrying capacity of the winter pastures of semidomesticated reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus (L., 1758)) and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)). This study, including a total of 234 sample plots, presents data on the biomass of alectorioid lichens in mature forests for the most common forest site types in the national parks of Oulanka, Pallas-Ounastunturi, and Lemmenjoki in northern Finland and relates them to forest stand characteristics. The biomass of alectorioid lichens on trees was estimated using the clump method in which the existing clumps of lichen thalli on branches are compared with clumps of lichens of known dry mass. Estimated biomasses were corrected by equations describing the ratio of estimated to measured biomass. We found the highest mean lichen biomasses (120 kg·ha –1 ) in subdry, Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) dominated sites above the timberline of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Below that timberline, the highest lichen biomasses were found in fresh (productive) sites dominated by Norway spruce. There the site-specific differences were mainly associated with tree species composition. Though in many previous studies forest age has been an important indicator of total lichen biomass, in our study areas lichen abundance was most commonly correlated with total volume of forest stands. The correlation of biomass with forest volume suggests that substrate availability was the most important limiting factor for alectorioid lichens in our study area. However, it is premature to say whether that is a common feature in northern forests over larger geographic areas.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".