Edge effects on epiphytic lichens in managed black spruce forests of eastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the spatial and temporal response of three epiphytic lichens (Bryoria spp., Evernia mesomorpha Nyl., and Usnea spp.) to edge effects in conifer forests of northwestern Quebec. Lichen abundance and substrate variables were sampled at four distances (5, 25, 50, and 100 m) from the edge in 15 edgeinterior transects in managed black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) forests. Responses to edge effects were assessed for short-term (13 years) and long-term (8 and 1623 years) periods. We also assessed the effect of forest fragment size on lichen abundance in 27 forest fragments ranging in size from 0.03 ha to >4 ha. We found a significant effect of distance to edge on mass of E. mesomorpha and Usnea spp. Lichen mass was lower in the first 50 m of edge compared with the forest interior (100 m). Size of forest fragments had no significant effect in any of the three lichens. However, mass of Usnea spp. was low in the seven smallest (<0.5 ha) fragments. Our results suggest that the response of epiphytic lichens to edge conditions could be used by forest managers as an indicator in determining the size of remnant stands that should be left to increase the proportion of interior forest habitat in harvested forest landscapes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".