Relative growth rates and secondary compounds in epiphytic lichens along canopy height gradients in forest gaps and meadows in inland British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore relative growth rates (RGRs) and carbon-based secondary compounds (CBSCs) in epiphytic lichens along height-above-the-ground gradients. The chlorolichen (Letharia vulpina (L.) Hue), the cephalolichen (Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm.), and the cyanolichens (Lobaria hallii (Tuck.) Zahlbr., Nephroma helveticum Ach.) were attached to branches at 0.5–3.0 m heights of young spruce trees transplanted for 1 year in forest gaps and in old meadows of an inland valley in British Columbia. Cephalolichen and cyanolichen RGRs were highest in forest gaps, whereas the chlorolichen grew faster in meadows with twice as much light as forest gaps. Transplantation height did not influence lichen temperature or RGRs, despite height-dependent light increases. CBSCs were highest in the chlorolichen (13%), followed by the cephalolichen (5%) and the cyanolichens (1% and 0%). CBSC concentrations increased with thallus size, and were significantly higher in forest gaps mainly for L. pulmonaria. Only one minor CBSC in each species varied with height. The slow growth of cephalolichen and cyanolichens in meadows is consistent with these lichens’ preferences for forested habitats. Cold air ponding from snow-capped mountains was probably strong enough to form enough nocturnal dew to support reasonable lichen growth at all heights. The high species-specific and the low habitat-specific CBSC variations are consistent with constitutive CBSC defense levels in studied lichens.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".