Soil seed bank composition over desert microhabitats: patterns and plausible mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed soil seed bank composition and size over several microhabitats of two habitats of the central Monte Desert of Argentina (open Prosopis woodland and Larrea shrubland) to analyse differences among them. Seed densities were similar to those already reported for other deserts, but we found consistent differences in seed composition among microhabitats. Whereas grass seeds (e.g., Aristida, Pappophorum, Neobouteloua, Trichloris, Digitaria) prevailed in natural depressions of open areas, forb seeds (e.g., Phacelia, Lappula, Descurainia, Plantago, Chenopodium) were more abundant under trees. The comparison of seed production during primary dispersal (i.e., seed rain) with seed density on the ground at the end of dispersal indicated that most forb seeds entered the habitat through the micro habitats located beneath the canopy of trees and tall shrubs, and remained there after redistribution. Most grass seeds, by contrast, entered it through bare-soil and under-grass microhabitats, and reached more even distributions after secondary dispersal, especially because of dramatic losses in bare soil. Patterns of plant recruitment and seed dynamics in specific microhabitats were better understood when differences of soil seed bank composition, but not of total seed density, were taken into account.Key words: Monte Desert, seed dispersal, seed predation, seed production, seeds.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".