MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Polytrichum strictum </i>as a Nurse‐Plant in Peatland Restoration

2007· article· en· W2135479464 on OpenAlexafffund
Elisabeth Groeneveld, Ariane Massé, Line Rochefort

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeatSphagnumMossBorealBotanyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polytrichum strictum is a pioneer plant frequently found on bare peat substrate after perturbations (fire, peat extraction). Can this moss facilitate the return of Sphagnum species or other boreal plants after disturbances? Field surveys of abandoned peatlands after peat extraction revealed that Sphagnum was always found in association with P. strictum carpets. We conducted field experiments in abandoned peatlands and showed that P. strictum carpets were able to keep Sphagnum fragments more humid than bare peat but only when the P. strictum carpets were not totally bone dry. In general, daytime temperatures beneath P. strictum carpets and fragments were reduced during the day and increased during the night compared to bare peat. Polytrichum strictum carpets acted as a seed trap, retaining more artificial seeds than bare peat. Polytrichum strictum can be a nurse‐plant: after 16 months, vascular plants transplanted in the P. strictum carpet were healthier than the ones planted on bare peat. The use of P. strictum as a nurse‐plant in boreal forest or peatland restoration is recommended for sites prone to frost heaving and with harsh microclimatic conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestoration EcologySame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207