<i>Sphagnum</i> establishment on bare peat: The importance of climatic variability and <i>Sphagnum</i> species richness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Question: What is the relative ability of four species of Sphagnum (S. fuscum, S. rubellum, S. magellanicum and S. angustifolium) to establish on bare peat substratum in the field when re‐introduced as single or multi‐species re‐introductions and in relation to interannual variations in climate? Location: Continental southeastern Canada. Methods: Diaspores (fragments) of four Sphagnum species alone or in combination were re‐introduced onto residual peat surfaces and were monitored to follow the development of the moss carpet over four growing seasons. In order to compare results under a variety of climatic conditions, this whole experimental setting was repeated four times (trials), with a four‐year follow‐up for each trial. Conclusions: The establishment rate of the moss carpet varied among years, in response to climatic variations between growing seasons. The relative success of different moss species and combinations of species, however, did not vary within or between trials. Thus, the species and combinations of species resulting in the highest short‐term or long‐term establishment rates remained the same for all trials, independent of the climatic conditions at the time of re‐introduction. Our results showed no link between the number of species in the diaspore mixture and successful establishment of the moss carpet. Yet successful regeneration was clearly influenced by the identity of species chosen for re‐introduction. S. fuscum, alone or in combination, was the species found to lead to the most extensive development of the moss carpet under the current test conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".