Microhabitat associations of lichens, feathermosses, and vascular plants in a caribou winter range, and their implications for understory development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vegetation–environment relationships are well understood for boreal lichen woodlands, but the mechanistic basis for small-scale understory patchiness (patches dominated by lichen, mosses, and vascular plants), and its implications for the prevalence of niche vs. neutral processes driving understory development, have not been explored. We asked whether predictable vegetation–environment associations exist at the microsite scale, with the goal of informing caribou range management. We sampled canopy and edaphic variables in patches of lichen, feathermoss, and vascular plants in subalpine lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm. ex S.Wats.) forests, in north-central British Columbia, Canada. Lichens positively associate with microsites that have high light and heat, and low moisture and nutrient availability; vascular plants positively associate with base-cation availability, sulphur and phosphorus availability, fine-textured soils, thick organic layers, and high light; feathermosses positively associate with low light and heat, and nitrogen availability. Understory composition is most strongly associated with canopy characteristics, but is also related to edaphic properties in predictable ways; soil and canopy attributes may further interact to define distinct intra-stand niches. The viability of caribou winter ranges can likely be extended by partially thinning or burning the canopy and organic layers, but the longevity of a lichen-dominant stage may ultimately depend on the soil texture, due to its influence on vascular plant growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".