Temporal aspects of the abrasion of microphytic crusts under grain impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wind‐tunnel simulations of the response of two moss crusts to grain impact indicate that, given sufficient time, these surfaces will deteriorate under very low wind velocities only slightly above u*t for the loose, saltating grains. In parallel with these experiments, the frequency distributions of ultimate strength and penetration energy were determined for each of the two crust types via penetrometry. Pohlia was found to be stronger than Tortula; but, even so, both of these crusts had ultimate strengths 20–350 times higher than the force delivered by a single grain impacting each surface at a velocity of 1 ms−1. In comparison, the modulus of deformation and penetration energy data were very similar for the two surface types, especially for the weakest areas of crust development. This observation is in accord with the wind‐tunnel simulations that also found no consistent difference in the response of these two crust types to impact. In comparison with crusts formed by clay and salt, fibrous microphytic crusts are morphologically complex and typically weak. The notable elasticity of these surfaces does reduce the force of grain impact, and thereby provides some protection against rupture. One of the central conclusions of this study suggests that not only is the particle kinetic energy at impact important in crust breakdown, but also tiny fractures at points of localized stress concentration contribute to a progressive reduction in the integrity of the filament net. In some of the experiments conducted as part of this study, up to 50 or more minutes of constant bombardment was required to produce small abrasion marks on selected areas of the microphytic crust. This study prepares a foundation for future experiments needed to examine the breakdown of complex crusts formed in nature. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".