Interactions between overstorey and understorey vegetation along an overstorey compositional gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Questions What is the nature of the interactions between higher vegetation strata (overstorey) and lower strata (understorey vegetation) and among understorey vegetation layers in closed canopy forests? How does the abundance or richness of one vegetation layer affect the abundance or richness of the other? Location Boreal mixed‐wood forests of O ntario and Q uebec, C anada. Methods We sampled fire‐origin stands of varying overstorey composition from broad‐leaf‐dominated to mixed to conifer‐dominated stands on mesic sites in O ntario and subhydric sites in Q uebec. Overstorey tree species composition and understorey shrub, herb, bryophyte and lichen species cover and richness were estimated within 400‐m 2 circular plots. In addition, soil nutrients, coarse woody debris and light conditions were measured. Overstorey composition was expressed as the percentage basal area of broad‐leaf tree species. Path analysis was used to examine interactions among the forest layers. Results Overstorey broad‐leaf composition had positive effects on shrub and herb layer cover and herb layer richness, and negative effects on bryophyte and lichen species cover and richness. Shrub layer cover had no effect on herb layer cover, but shrub layer richness had a positive effect on herb layer richness. Herb layer cover and richness had negative effects on bryophyte species cover and richness. Bryophyte cover had no effect on lichen cover, but its richness was positively related to lichen richness. In both regions, soil p H , total nitrogen, total phosphorus and cation exchange capacity of the forest floor were positively correlated with overstorey broad‐leaf composition and with shrub layer cover and herb layer cover. Conclusions Increasing overstorey broad‐leaf composition, through its influence on soil nutrients, promotes shrub and herb layer species, but limits bryophyte and lichen species. In the overstorey‐controlled understorey resource environment, cover and richness of shrub and herb layers increase with resource availability, whereas bryophytes and lichens show positive associations with abundance of coarse woody debris.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".