Positive interactions between moss cushions and vascular plant cover improve water economy on Öland’s alvar, Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dense moss cushions colonize bare limestone pavements on Öland’s alvar, southeastern Sweden. As these cushions grow larger and thicker and can store more water, they should physically protect and facilitate their own performance as well as the colonization by vascular plants. We tested these predictions by measuring the airflow and water economy of moss cushions. We found that cushions are imbedded in boundary layers formed by ground and moss surfaces. Near-surface flow was reduced immediately upwind and negligible downwind of the moss cushions, which should facilitate their centrifugal expansion. The calculated diffusion boundary layer was thin (<0.7 mm) above moss cushions exposed to free airflow of 1–6 m·s−1 in accordance with substantial turbulence measured by small sensors at 0.5 cm distance from moss surfaces. Evaporation from the wetted cushions increased linearly with wind speed (0 and 8 m·s−1) in wind-tunnel experiments, and neither evaporation nor airflow followed standard formulas for objects in free flow. Higher wind speed reduced the diffusion boundary layer and simultaneously cooled the moss surface, thereby reducing the drop in water vapour concentration from moss surfaces to air. As desiccation of cushions progressed during three dry summer days, the profound decline of evaporation rate with cushion size gradually became positive when only large cushions still contained water. Water economy in relation to cushion size predicted that rehydrated large cushions retained photosynthesis for 80% and small cushions for only 50% of the time. A cover of the succulent plant Sedum album L. reduced sun and wind exposure and water loss from the moss surface. Sedum remained hydrated after mosses had dried out. Moss cushions and Sedum can, therefore, mutually benefit from each other’s water economy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".