Litterfall, growth, and turnover of arboreal lichens after partial cutting in an Engelmann spruce subalpine fir forest in north-central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamics of canopy lichens were investigated for 2 years after group and single-tree selection harvesting in a Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. forest in north-central British Columbia. Litter fall was collected in 1-m2traps set on the forest floor and estimates of Alectoria sarmentosa (Ach.) Ach. and Bryoria spp. litterfall adjusted for decomposition in the snowpack. Growth rates of A. sarmentosa and Bryoria fuscescens (Gyeln.) Brodo & D. Hawksworth were measured by repeatedly weighing samples maintained in mesh enclosures in the canopy. Standing crop of canopy lichens was measured in concurrent studies. There appeared to be a small postharvest pulse of litterfall in the single-tree selection area, but it was largely masked by natural variation. Ninety percent of the lichen litterfall was deposited within 10 m of the nearest tree. Annual relative growth rates of A. sarmentosa and B. fuscescens ranged from 2.7% to 10.4% and from 2.4% to 9.1%, respectively. Growth rates of both species were as high in the single-tree selection area as in the unlogged control area but were reduced along the edges of group selection openings. Growth and turnover (annual litterfall as a percentage of standing crop) of Alectoria were approximately in balance, but growth of Bryoria exceeded turnover. In situ decomposition of Bryoria may account for the difference.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".