Relative growth rates of two epiphytic lichens, <i>Lobaria pulmonaria</i> and <i>Hypogymnia occidentalis</i>, transplanted within and outside of <i>Populus</i> dripzones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overstory Populus has been shown to facilitate establishment by cyano- and cephalolichens on conifer branches within its dripzone; though the mechanisms behind this “dripzone effect” have yet to be elucidated. Here we test the following hypotheses that throughfall from Populus: (i) elevates bark pH; (ii) increases relative growth rate in cephalolichens; and (iii) stimulates their growth through phosphorus (P) fertilization. In southern British Columbia we transplanted the cephalolichen Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. (promoted by dripzones) and the acidophytic chlorolichen Hypogymnia occidentalis L.H. Pike for 14 months to 26 pairs of similar-sized Picea glauca × engelmannii situated within and outside of Populus dripzones. Half of our transplants were fertilized with P. Bark pH was significantly higher on spruce branches within than outside dripzones. Relative growth rate in L. pulmonaria increased with bark pH and was slightly higher within dripzones than outside, consistent with a facilitating effect of Populus on the Lobarion community. By contrast, the addition of P decreased relative thallus area growth in L. pulmonaria and increased relative thallus area growth in H. occidentalis; though a stronger influence on growth could be attributed to variation in canopy cover and tree height. We conclude that cephalolichens in our study area are unlikely to be facilitated by P leached from Populus.
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".