Ecohydrology of <i>Sphagnum</i> moss hummocks: mechanisms of capitula water supply and simulated effects of evaporation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Maintaining sufficiently high surface (capitula) soil‐water pressures to avoid the draining of hyaline cells (desiccation) is paramount to hummock‐forming Sphagnum species' survival; however, the mechanisms of capitula water supply are poorly understood. This study investigates how the hydraulic characteristics of different Sphagnum species ( Sphagnum fuscum , Sphagnum rubellum and Sphagnum magellanicum ) contribute to desiccation avoidance, on the basis of numerical simulations parameterized with measured soil hydraulic characteristics for each species. Although having similar unsaturated hydraulic conductivity values, the upper 5 cm of S. magellanicum retains ~20% less moisture under tension than S. fuscum and S. rubellum ; in fact, S. rubellum on average retained slightly more water than S. fuscum . Hydrus‐1D was used to simulate daytime and nighttime conditions over a 7‐day period, where daily potential evaporation was 4 mm, to explore the governing mechanisms controlling water supply to the capitula. The simulations showed that S. fuscum and S. rubellum were able to retain sufficiently high moisture content under the prevailing simulated water demand to sustain surface soil‐water pressure heads (greater than −100 cm), whereas S. magellanicum could not prevent depressurization and the concomitant desiccation of its surface layer. A similar number of the same size pores were observed in all species; however, there was lower pore connectivity in S. magellanicum leading to the desiccation of the capitula. Contrary to previous studies, the results of this study indicate that it is not only soil‐water retention but also pore connectivity that allows hummock species to thrive above the water table. Copyright © 2012 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".