Bryophyte community structure in a boreal poor fen: reciprocal transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of four boreal bryophytes (Sphagnum angustifolium (C. Jens ex Russ.), Sphagnum fuscum (Schimp.) Klinggr., Sphagnum magellanicum Brid., and Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt.) to live in each others' habitats was examined in a 1-year reciprocal transplant experiment conducted in a poor fen peatland in northern Alberta, Canada. Growth in length was determined by measuring increase in shoot length, and growth in dry weight was determined by subtracting final dry weight from initial predicted dry weight. Species tolerance ranges, which approximate to fundamental niches, were determined by the significant differences in growth among the species. Stepwise regression analyses indicated that depth to water was the most important factor for all species except S. fuscum. Pleurozium schreberi exhibited the narrowest potential distribution, indicating that its present distribution is likely the result of habitat limitation. Although S. magellanicum and S. angustifolium exhibited wide potential ecological amplitude, the distributions of these species are partially limited by habitat. Sphagnum fuscum was able to grow in all habitats, and its distribution is not limited by any of the habitat factors measured.Key words: peatland, moss, community structure, Sphagnum, Pleurozium schreberi, niche.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".