A comparison of<i>Lobaria pulmonaria</i>population structure between subalpine fir (<i>Abies lasiocarpa</i>) and mountain alder (<i>Alnus incana</i>) host-tree species in British Columbia’s inland temperate rainforest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a study using dated branch segments, we determined the size class distribution and reproductive status of Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. growing on subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa Nutt.) and mountain alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench) alongside small streams in British Columbia’s inland temperate rainforest (ITR). The number of thalli per branch segment did not significantly differ between Abies and Alnus, although mean L. pulmonaria biomass on entire branches was 71.03 g on fir and 12.31 g on alder. Branch diameter was a significant predictor for reproductive status of thalli on fir, whereas branch age was a better predictor for thalli on mountain alder. The presence of sorediate and (or) isidiate individuals on branch segments <10 years old suggests a rapid generation time for L. pulmonaria in the ITR. Annual growth rates of L. pulmonaria thalli reached up to 1.16 cm2·cm−2·yr−1on branch segments less than 15 years in age. Specific thallus mass (STM) was significantly higher for thalli on alder. STM was strongly dependent on thallus size on both host-tree species, with values from above 10 mg.cm−2in large thalli (>100 cm2), to <3 mg.cm−2in small thalli (<0.1 cm2). These differences between host-tree species can be interpreted in context of both adjacent canopy structure and the differences in tree growth form between these two host-tree species, both of which factors lead to greater light availability at the surface of mountain alder branches. The fast growth rates and short generation time observed in L. pulmonaria thalli growing on both alder and fir highlights the favorable conditions riparian habitats create for lichen growth in British Columbia’s ITR.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".