Macrolichen colonization on 120–140 year old <b><i>Tsuga heterophylla</i></b> in wet temperate rainforests of central-interior British Columbia: a comparison of lichen response to even-aged versus old-growth stand structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canopy lichen abundance was assessed by size class on regenerating hemlocks, comparing trees of similar size and age (c. 120–140 yrs) growing in the understorey of old-growth cedar-hemlock stands with those growing in adjacent even-aged hemlock stands (natural origin patches c. 1–3 ha in size). Five chlorolichen taxa were associated with old-growth understorey trees: Cavernularia hultenii, Hypogymnia vitatta, Parmelia hygrophila, Platismatia norvegica, and Usnea spp. Lobaria pulmonaria was the most abundant cyanolichen on regenerating hemlock in the old-growth forest stands, particularly in lower canopy (under 12 m) exposures. However, other cyanolichen taxa such as Nephroma helveticum, Sticta fulginosa, and Pseudocyphellaria anomala, reached their greatest abundance at mid-canopy (12–24 m) positions. Smaller cyanolichen thalli (<9 cm2) were abundant on regenerating hemlocks across all canopy positions in the old-growth forest, raising the question as to whether or not cyanolichen thalli in mid- to upper-canopy environments represented long-established individuals facing severe growth constraints, or were simply thalli that had experienced higher rates of fragmentation, and thus did not achieve larger sizes. In comparison, cyanolichens of all taxa were essentially absent from the small-patch even-aged forest stands. Given that dispersal of propagules was not likely a major limiting factor, these 120–140 year old even-age stands may not yet have attained sufficient old-growth characteristics (especially canopy microclimate and canopy throughflow enrichment) to support cyanolichen growth. These findings have major conservation biology implications for wet interior cedar-hemlock forests in British Columbia, where forest harvesting is creating a mosaic of even-aged stands, whose projected age at the time of next harvest (rotation age) will be 120 years or less.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".