Canopy and substratum heterogeneity influence recruitment of the mangrove <i>Avicennia marina</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Mangrove forests are structurally complex with canopy gaps generated by physical disturbances such as storms and mounds created on the forest floor by biotic disturbances such as crabs excavating burrows. I studied how variations in canopy cover and substratum topography influence the recruitment and demography of the mangrove Avicennia marina in a temperate forest in New South Wales, Australia. Surveys showed that mounds covered up to 44% of the forest floor and were larger and covered more of the substratum under the canopy than in gaps. Propagules and new seedlings (i.e. the most recently established cohort) were more abundant under the canopy than in gaps and on flat areas than on mounds. A field experiment tested whether the observed spatial distribution of new seedlings was due to differences in the secondary dispersal of propagules or in the establishment or early survivorship of seedlings. Propagules were supplied in equal densities on mounds and flats under the canopy and in gaps and then monitored for 10 months. Four times as many propagules were dispersed away from mounds as from flats, and this difference was greater under the canopy than in gaps. In contrast, seedlings established more successfully on mounds, particularly in gaps, suggesting that this is an important microhabitat for recruitment. Seedling survival to 9 months was independent of habitat structure. The influence of mounds on dispersal was, however, much greater than on establishment, so that densities of new seedlings 9 months after establishment were greater on flats. Patterns of seedling abundance in the mangrove forest are thus primarily driven by the influence of habitat structure on the supply of propagules. In contrast, saplings were most abundant on mounds in gaps. Thus, there is a shift in the spatial distribution of the population from the early to the later stages of life history in relation to habitat structure. Long‐term survival of seedlings and their development into saplings may depend both on light availability in gaps and on sediment disturbance resulting from the creation of mounds. The causative agent, crabs, may therefore be critical for regeneration of mangrove forests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".