Sporophyte production and spore dispersal phenology in <i>Sphagnum</i>: the importance of summer moisture and patch characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sporophyte production in Sphagnum was followed annually in 80 permanent 1-m2 plots at the bog expanse of a pristine mire during 19931999 and in 60 plots in peat pits abandoned 50 years ago during 19961999 in east central Sweden. The nine most abundant Sphagnum species produced sporophytes, with mean annual production ranging from 0.64 to 20 sporophytes/dm2 of cover among species. An estimated mean of 16 million Sphagnum spores/m2 mire area was produced annually at both mires. At the pristine mire, sporophyte production was positively related to the amount of precipitation the previous summer, suggesting that gametangium formation is especially sensitive to summer droughts. At the wetter peat pits, the amount of precipitation during spring in the year of sporophyte formation appeared more important, probably by positively affecting male gamete dispersal and fertilization. Larger patches had a higher probability of producing sporophytes at least once, showing areas with both sexes present among dioecious species, and thus giving an indication of clone size. Only slight differences in sporophyte production were found between the two mires, apart from effects of hydrological conditions and patch size. This indicates numerous colonizations at the peat pits. Summer droughts affected sporophyte maturation negatively by drying out sporophytes prematurely. Spore release phenology differed among species by up to a month and lasted from the beginning of July until the end of August. The early timing of spore dispersal in the most drought-sensitive, lawn-inhabiting sphagna should reduce the risk of sporophytes drying out prematurely during summer droughts.Key words: bryophyte, long-term study, mire, model, sexual reproduction, strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".