Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disturbed peatlands may undergo a dramatic alteration in ecohydrological conditions, potentially limiting the recolonisation of peat-forming species like Sphagnum. A poor fen was experimentally drained in 1984, both the drained and undrained portion of the peatland burned in 2001, providing an unique opportunity to examine the ecohydrological response to ‘double disturbance’. The undrained site was characterized by a healthy recovery of peatland microform Sphagnum species, low soil water pressure (Ψ), high volumetric soil moisture (θ) content and high and stable water table position. However, the drained site showed no recolonization of Sphagnum with Brome grasses representing the dominant surface cover nine years post-wildfire. While the study period was generally wet and as such Ψ did not exceed thresholds limiting Sphagnum growth (≥ -100 mb) during the study period, a series of ecohydrological influences were found to be operating, limiting Sphagnum recolonisation at the drained site. The physical peat structure following drainage and wildfire has been considerably altered, changing the moisture retention and water storage properties of the peat, largely through substantive increases in bulk density (ρb). Moreover, specific yield (Sy) has also decreased the drained peat having become more humified, increasing unstable water table fluctuations. As such, this has lowered the resilience to drought. Only smaller decreases in θ are required to reach Ψ ≥ -100 mb at the drained and impose ecophysiological stress on Sphagnum growth. Dense canopy cover (Betula and Salix) has limited available radiation at the surface to recolonisation, shading out the surface, further limiting Sphagnum recolonisation.
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".