Nitrogen retention by<i>Sphagnum</i>mosses: responses to atmospheric nitrogen deposition and drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sphagnum mosses are assumed to be effective at acquiring low amounts of nitrogen (N) in precipitation to support annual growth. However, N concentrations in precipitation have increased from anthropogenic sources over the last 150 years. I hypothesized that N retention from wet atmospheric deposition decreases with increased N availability, by comparing Sphagnum mosses in a high N deposition region in the Adirondack Park, New York, to a low-deposition region in eastern Maine. A 15 NH 4 15 NO 3 tracer was applied to mosses in both regions, and retention after 24 h was estimated. Nitrogen retention ranged from 50 to 90% of N applied. Most 15 N was recovered from the apical capitula and upper stems. Nitrogen retention was greater in the Maine sites in 1998. However, in 1999, a drought year, particularly in Maine, N retention was less in Maine than in New York. The drier climate appeared to lower N retention, possibly through its physiological effects on the mosses. Although atmospheric deposition might be the only exogenous source of N, it satisfied only a small fraction of N required for annual growth. These data suggest that internal cycling processes, such as mineralization, may be much more important N sources to support Sphagnum growth.Key words: Sphagnum mosses, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, nitrogen-use efficiency, nitrogen retention, peatlands, bogs, drought.
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) | 0.002 | 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".