Improved resolution of pollen taxonomy allows better biogeographical interpretation of post‐glacial forest development: analyses from the North American Pollen Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Species-level pollen identifications within the genera Acer, Fraxinus and Juglans have the potential to increase the detail available from regional- and landscape-scale studies of palaeo-forest dynamics. 2 Data from the North American Pollen Database (NAPD) and the North American Modern Pollen Database (NAMPD) for sites in eastern North America for which species-level identifications have been recorded enabled us to consider pollen taxonomy at high resolution. 3 Species within each of Acer, Fraxinus and Juglans have important differences in habitat, functional type and responses to climatic change. Analysis of the modern distribution of these taxa and their pollen rains confirms that species-level pollen identifications provide detailed ecological information, but the lack of distinction to the species level in many fossil and modern pollen studies renders palaeoenvironmental reconstructions incomplete. 4 Within each of three selected high-resolution sites, ordinations indicate that individual species of Acer, Fraxinus and Juglans follow different trajectories through the Holocene, showing that analysing only generic categories results in the loss of ecologically valuable information. For example, pollen of Acer rubrum increased in abundance in response to canopy openings in a southern Ontario forest around 500 years ago, while that of A. saccharum declined. Similarly, Juglans nigra pollen percentages increased while J. cinerea decreased at this time. 5 Regional-scale comparisons of pollen percentage curves indicate that, despite the uncertainties associated with the low temporal resolution and the chronologies, it is reasonable to conclude that individual species of Acer, Fraxinus and Juglans responded synchronously to palaeoclimatic changes within each region. 6 Taking analyses to the specific level shows that different species followed different tracks in their post-glacial history, a fact previously blurred by less resolved taxonomy. This information is meaningful in biogeographical terms, providing much more specific evidence of how the selected trees behaved in the past.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".