MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160660566 · doi:10.1139/x09-013

Influence of tree species on epiphytic macrolichens in temperate mixed forests of northern Italy

2009· article· en· W2160660566 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juri Nascimbene, Lorenzo Marini, Pier Luigi Nimis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLichenFagus sylvaticaAbies albaEpiphyteSpecies richnessEcologyIndicator speciesPicea abiesTemperate rainforestBiologyGeographyHabitatBotanyBeechEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree species is a key factor in shaping epiphytic lichen communities. In managed forests, tree species composition is mainly controlled by forest management, with important consequences on lichen diversity. The main aim of this work was to evaluate the differences at tree level in macrolichen richness and composition between Abies alba Mill. and Fagus sylvatica L. in a temperate mixed forest in northern Italy, in addition to evaluating two different proportions of the two species at the stand level. Abies alba and F. sylvatica host lichen communities including several rare and sensitive species. Our findings indicate that both tree species were important for lichen diversity, since they hosted different communities. However, F. sylvatica proved to be a more favourable hosting tree for several rare and sensitive species. Species associated with A. alba were mainly acidophytic lichens, while those associated with F. sylvatica were foliose hygrophytic lichens, mainly establishing over bryophytes. The frequency of the flagship species Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. was a valuable predictor of cyanolichen richness and was useful in identifying sites hosting lichen communities that are potentially more sensitive to thinning and human disturbance. The results support the relevance of mixed A. alba – F. sylvatica formations among European habitats worthy of conservation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207