Response of Peatland Mosses to Burial by Wind-dispersed Peat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When abandoned peatlands undergo restoration following the extraction of peat moss, newly reintroduced diaspores may be buried by particles eroded from the stripped peat (decomposed) or from adjacent extraction activities. This study examined, in the greenhouse, the tolerance of six species of peat mosses to burial by peat. One of the experiments consisted of depositing predetermined thicknesses (0, 10, and 30 mm) of peat onto partially established mats of Sphagnum species and true mosses. A second experiment evaluated the effect of a wider range of burial depths (maximum set at 40 mm) on Sphagnum fuscum. After ten weeks of burial, the expansion of the established mosses buried under 10 mm of peat was slowed down but not arrested. Dicranella cerviculata is the only species that did not tolerate being buried. The mosses showed three types of final responses to burial: neutral, in which the increases and decreases in cover were not significantly different between the tested and the control depths (for Sphagnum fuscum buried under 5 mm and Sphagnum fallax buried under 10 mm); negative, in which the decrease in cover was significant at the depth tested (for Sphagnum fuscum, Sphagnum magellanicum, Polytrichum strictum, and Dicranella cerviculata buried under 10 mm or more, and for Sphagnum fallax and Sphagnum capillifolium buried under 30 mm of peat); and positive, in which the increase in cover was significant at the depth tested (for Sphagnum capillifolium buried under 10 mm of peat). After burial, mosses emerged by means of an innovation or a continuity of the stem of the initial individual for the Sphagnum species, and by means of an innovation growing out of the apex of buried individuals in the case of Polytrichum strictum. It appears that restoration efforts may be futile in cases where diaspores and newly established mats are likely to be buried at depths exceeding 10 mm.
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".