Plant species diversity and composition of wetlands within an upland forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though often overlooked, small wetlands in an upland matrix can support diverse plant communities that increase both local and regional species richness. Here we characterize the full range of wetland vegetation within an upland forest landscape and compare the diversity and composition of different wetland plant communities. In an old-growth forest reserve in southern Quebec, Canada, we sampled wet habitats including lakeshores, permanent and seasonal ponds, swamps, glades, and streamsides. We used clustering, indicator species analysis, and nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination to identify and compare vegetation types. The wetlands contained 280 species of vascular plants, 45% of the reserve's flora, in only 1.1% of its area. Local diversity averaged 24 ± 0.7 species per 7 m(2), much higher than in the surrounding upland forests. Plant communities sorted into five types, whose strongest indicator species were Osmunda regalis, Glyceria striata, O. cinnamomea, Deparia acrostichoides, and Matteuccia struthiopteris, respectively. Both local species richness and compositional variation among sites differed among the vegetation types. By combining species representative of the region's major wetlands with species from the upland forest matrix, the plant assemblages of these wetlands make disproportionately important contributions to landscape-level diversity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".