Stochastic processes dominate during boreal bryophyte community assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why are plant species found in certain locations and not in others? The study of community assembly rules has attempted to answer this question, and many studies articulate the historic dichotomy of deterministic (predictable niches) vs. stochastic (random or semi-random processes). The study of successional sequences to determine whether they converge, as would be expected by deterministic theory, or diverge, as stochastic theory would suggest, has been one method used to investigate this question. In this article we ask the question: Do similar boreal bryophyte communities develop in the similar habitat created by convergent succession after fires of different severities? Or do the stochastic processes generated by fires of different severity lead to different communities? Specifically we predict that deterministic structure will be more important for large forest-floor species than stochastic processes, and that the inverse will be true for small bryophyte species. We used multivariate regression trees and model selection to determine the relative weight of structure (forest structure, substrates, soil structure) and processes (fire severity) for two groups of bryophyte species sampled in 12 sites (seven high-severity and five low-severity fires). Contrary to our first hypothesis, processes were as important for large forest-floor bryophytes as for small pocket species. Fire severity, its interaction with the quality of available habitat, and its impact on the creation of biological legacies played dominant roles in determining community structure. In this study, sites with nearly identical forest structure, generated via convergent succession after high- and low-severity fire, were compared to see whether these sites supported similar bryophyte communities. While similar to some degree, both the large forest-floor species and the pocket species differed after high-severity fire compared to low-severity fire. This result suggests that the "how," or process of habitat generation, influences community composition in this system and that a snapshot of habitat conditions taken at only one point in time is insufficient to explain species distribution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".