Proglacial succession of biological soil crusts and vascular plants: biotic interactions in the High Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the hypothesis that biological soil crusts facilitate the establishment and maintenance of vascular plants during succession, we studied the distribution patterns of crusts and vascular plants along a High Arctic glacier foreland and compared the success of plants growing in and out of crusted substrate. Multivariate analyses determined that distance from the glacier and crust cover were the most important variables, explaining 11% and 9% of the variance in the vegetation data, respectively. Surfaces colonized by biological soil crusts generally supported higher plant densities and showed positive associations with the most dominant, long-lived plant species such as Saxifraga oppositifolia L., Salix arctica Pall., and Dryas integrifolia Vahl. Crusts facilitate plant establishment and growth in early and midsuccession but may compete for available resources further along the chronosequence. This study recognizes subtle direct influences of crust on vegetation density but also draws attention to a much larger overall positive effect on community structure. Succession on this foreland proceeds via a “directional-replacement” model and supports a well-developed community of biological soil crusts and vascular plants with greater species richness, cover, and density compared with other glacier foreland vegetation communities previously investigated on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".