Lichen communities in two old-growth pine (<i>Pinus</i>) forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many lichen species have specific environmental requirements for colonization. Old-growth forests contain microhabitats required by a particular suite of lichens. In Ontario, Canada, old-growth forests are increasingly uncommon and the lichen communities within some of these forests are not well known. To better understand the lichen communities that inhabit old-growth forests in the province, we examined the lichen biota on coarse woody debris (CWD) and trees in a red pine (Pinus resinosa) and a white pine (Pinus strobus) dominated stand in northern Ontario. Lichen diversity was assessed on different forms of CWD and trees in each forest. Lichen diversity did not differ significantly between CWD types in the red pine forest, but was significantly different in the white pine forest. There was no significant difference in lichen diversity amongst different decay stages of CWD in either forest. In both forests, lichen communities on stumps, logs, and snags differed from lichen communities present on trees. A variety of CWD types is important for overall lichen species richness in the red pine forest. Our results demonstrate to land managers that different types of old-growth forests are ecologically unique, even those dominated by tree species in the same genus. Management of an old-growth forest should suit its individual ecology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".