Evaluation of tree canopy epiphytes and bark characteristics associated with the presence of corticolous myxomycetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain species of myxomycetes (plasmodial slime molds) are regularly present with mosses, lichens, and algae. Corticolous myxomycetes were previously studied in the tree canopy, and observations suggested that species occurrence is patchy and species abundance may increase with the presence of bryophytes and lichens. The purpose of this study was to quantify the association of corticolous myxomycete species with percent cover of epiphytes and with bark characteristics, such as water absorption, bark thickness, and bark pH. Study sites were located in three temperate forests in the southeastern USA. The doubled rope climbing method was used to collect bark from trees and grapevines in a vertical transect up to 15 m above ground level. Moist chambers (374) were used to culture myxomycetes for 32 d. The percent cover of lichens, bryophytes, myxobacteria, and filamentous fungi were estimated in five 2 cm × 2 cm quadrats for 187 sample sites. Results showed no association between percent cover of epiphytes and myxomycetes. Bark pH was the major factor influencing the occurrence of corticolous myxomycete species, and the patchy distribution of myxomycetes was attributed to the small plasmodium characteristic of most corticolous species.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".