Substrate effects on distribution, biomass allocation, and morphology of forest understory plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between rooting substrate and the distribution and performance of forest plants are inadequately understood. We tested whether understory species in a dense coniferous forest were associated with coarse woody debris (CWD) or forest floor. In addition, for three species with differing substrate associations ( Vaccinium parvifolium Smith, Tiarella trifoliata L., and Maianthemum dilatatum (Wood) Nels. and Macbr., we excavated individuals rooted in CWD and forest floor, and compared biomass allocation and plant morphological traits. Substrate samples were also tested for moisture content. Of 29 species tested, 18 (62%) showed positive associations with forest floor and 6 (21%) with CWD. Forest floor is a more predictable and stable substrate; in these forests it also supports lower moss cover that can inhibit seedling establishment. As expected, plants rooted in forest floor (which was drier) allocated greater biomass to belowground structures. Root-system traits, however, did not suggest plasticity in response to resource availability. Instead, the physical structure of logs may constrain root systems in CWD. In addition, total plant biomass did not differ between substrates suggesting that under low light, species may be incapable of responding to differences in belowground resources. Alternatively, substrate associations may develop earlier in the life histories of these plants via differential germination and survival.
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".