Quantification of plant dispersal ability within and beyond a calcareous grassland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question Many calcareous grasslands in Europe have declined in species richness in recent decades. This loss of species could be partly due to habitat loss and fragmentation, leading to increased distances and reduced connectivity through seed flow between calcareous grassland patches resulting in increased local extinction risk related to small population size, and partly due to abandonment of traditional management practices that fostered dispersal within and between patches. Here, we quantify short‐ and intermediate‐distance dispersal ability of dry calcareous grassland species and relate these to dispersal traits. Location Schaffhauser Randen, Switzerland. Methods We studied wind dispersal of diaspores under natural conditions within and beyond two replicate calcareous grassland patches. Funnel traps (n = 230) were set up at heights of 0.2 m and 0.7 m along ten transects traversing the calcareous grassland and extending 40 m into the surrounding landscape. We developed a new method for quantifying short ‐ (0–1 m) and intermediate‐distance (1–40 m) dispersal ability, related these to species traits, and tested whether they were able to explain dispersal rates into the adjacent landscape. Results While grasses could be categorized as good dispersers over short or intermediate distances, or both, forbs were generally poor dispersers over both distance classes. Only small numbers of diaspores were found in the adjacent landscape, and these were predominantly grasses. Diaspore traits, such as terminal velocity or diaspore mass, contributed little to explaining dispersal ability, whereas release height was an important predictor, especially for intermediate‐distance dispersal. Conclusions Under natural field conditions, dispersal into the adjacent landscape depends on release height rather than terminal velocity, and is heavily biased towards grasses, so that seed rain does not reflect the species composition of the calcareous grassland community. Thus natural regeneration of species richness of degenerated calcareous grassland communities even over short distances should not rely on wind dispersal alone.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".