Bryophyte communities along horizontal and vertical gradients in a human-modified Atlantic Forest remnant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the richness, diversity, and composition of epiphytic bryophytes in a Brazilian Atlantic Forest remnant along zones of height within host trees (vertical gradient) and edge to interior (horizontal gradient). We established five classes of edge distance, and within each one, three host trees were selected (15 in total). Samples were collected in five height zones within host trees from the base to the top. The highest average values of richness and diversity were found in the trunk zone. There was no significant difference of bryophyte total richness and diversity along edge distance and vertical zones. However, the guilds of light tolerance displayed particularities regarding vertical zonation. Shade epiphytes decreased significantly along vertical gradients, whereas sun epiphytes increased, demonstrating a compositional vertical stratification within host trees. Thus, bryophyte distribution in both understories and canopies is more related to microenvironmental conditions than landscape characteristics such as edge distance. Moreover, the features of the Atlantic Forest associated with the environmental heterogeneity of the remnant may play an important role in the lack of gradient in species' composition from the edge to the interior of the forest.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".