The influence of past and present hydrological conditions on<i>Sphagnum</i>recolonization and succession in a block‐cut bog, Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study of an abandoned cutover bog aims to understand the processes controlling moisture conditions that have led to distinct spatial patterns ofSphagnumrecolonization, and also how substrate conditions may have changed since abandonment and the implications for plant establishment. Two (unreplicated) symmetrical 12 × 3·5 m2quadrats either side of the centre‐line of a block‐cut trench were treated by removing all recolonized vegetation, includingSphagnum, from one quadrat (REMOV), examiningSphagnum‐covered (SPHAG) peat in the other, and bare peat (BARE) in both. Average volumetric soil moisture contents θ in the peat (2 cm below the surface) of the SPHAG and REMOV substrates were similar (∼86%), but greater than in BARE peat (∼78%). In a location not manipulated for this experiment, whereSphagnumcushions have re‐established on bare cutover peat, θ beneath the cushions was 5–14% greater than in bare cutover peat directly adjacent to it, indicating that cushions can regulate local substrate water storage, and benefit from it during periods of increased water demand. This may have assisted in the lateral expansion ofSphagnum. A loosely structured 0·5 to 1·0 cm thick organic litter layer (chiefly Ericaceae) overlying the BARE peat substrate slowed the rate of drying of bare peat in a laboratory sample. The laboratory tests found the capillary fringe to be up to 26 cm above the water table. The dry conditions and the larger pore structure of this litter layer hindered upward capillary flow and, therefore, plant water availability. In (occluded) ditches and low areas, the capillary fringe remained within 5 cm of the surface, and these locations supported the most completeSphagnumcover. In slightly higher areas, where the capillary fringe was about 20 cm below the surface, and because of the leaf litter, capillary water supply to the surface is sufficiently restricted to limitSphagnumrecolonization. These locations may have to await lateral expansion ofSphagnumcushions to achieve a full cover. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 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".