Influence of Different Bryophyte Carpets on Vascular Plant Establishment Around Pools in Restored Peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vascular plants associated to natural peatland pools do not spontaneously colonize edges of man‐made pools in restored peatlands and have proven to be recalcitrant to the usual restoration techniques. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of the species used as a seedbed (Cladopodiella fluitans, Sphagnum cuspidatum, or Sphagnum magellanicum) and its developmental stage (established carpet or newly reintroduced fragments) on establishment success in the field of the seeds of four vascular species: Carex limosa, Carex magellanica, Carex oligosperma, and Scheuchzeria palustris. The germination rate was measured after one season and growth after two seasons. Seedbed composition and developmental stage had no effect on Carex, whereas the germination of S. palustris was higher on S. cuspidatum. Growth of vascular plants was slightly improved on S. magellanicum carpets and was lower on seedbeds of C. fluitans. Our results lead us to recommend seeding at the same time as bryophyte fragments are spread and fostering introduction of Sphagnum mosses, preferably to C. fluitans, around artificial pool edges. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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".