Spatial distribution and succession of epiphytes on <i>Tsuga heterophylla</i> (western hemlock) in an old-growth Douglas-fir forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the distribution and abundance of nonvascular epiphytes on western hemlock trees in an old-growth coniferous forest focusing on patterns of epiphyte distribution at different spatial scales, epiphyte abundance amongst trees differing in size, and crown structures associated with epiphyte abundance. Total epiphyte cover was greatest in four canopy microhabitats: the upper canopy strata, crowns of large trees, lower crown branches, and inner branch plots. Epiphyte functional groups were stratified vertically within the stand and horizontally within branches. Alectorioid and "other" lichens were most abundant in the upper canopy and outer branch plots. Cyanolichens and Sphaerophorus globosus (Huds.) Vain. were most abundant in the lower to mid canopy. Although cyanolichens were most abundant in middle branch plots, Sphaerophorus was most abundant in inner branch plots. Bryophytes were most abundant in the lower canopy and inner branch plots. At the stand level, canopy height and tree size were the main influences on epiphytes. Within trees, plots closer to the tree trunk and lower in the crown had the greatest abundance of epiphytes. In this forest, understory trees were colonized first by bryophytes, not by alectorioid and "other" lichens as is common for small trees in young stands.Key words: epiphyte succession, lichens, western hemlock, old growth, forest canopy, crown structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".