Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generation time and juvenile growth rates are important but poorly known parameters in lichen population biology. By using a noninvasive method, we aimed to quantify these variables in juvenile thalli of Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm., L. scrobiculata (Scop.) D.C., and Pseudocyphellaria crocata (L.) Vain., in situ, on twigs of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst in boreal rainforests. Growth was monitored during the summer months (May–August, 106 d), as well as in the remaining part of the year (259 d), for each of two sequential years, by means of repeated photography and imaging analysis. The mean relative thallus-area growth rates were 0.53 ± 0.02, 0.41 ± 0.02, and 0.57 ± 0.04 mm2·mm–2·year–1 (mean ±SE), respectively, in the three species, equivalent to a yearly growth of 101 ± 5%, 70 ± 6%, and 121 ± 12%. Growth was much slower during the winter (0.09–0.12 mm2·cm–2·d–1) than in summer (0.19–0.27 mm2·cm–2·d–1). Relative growth rates significantly declined with increasing thallus size. Estimated generation times in L. scrobiculata and P. crocata, based upon the first observed formation of reproductive structures, were 15–22 and 9–13 years, respectively. Studied L. pulmonaria thalli produced no diaspores during the experiment, consistent with a generation time >17 years. The relative growth rates we measured and our estimated generation times are faster than those earlier recorded. Thus, our noninvasive method can estimate parameters needed to model population growth within a reasonable period of time. The rapid juvenile development implies that the growth rates and generation times are unlikely to be the limiting factors that exclude these lichens from young forests.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".