Linkages between spatio‐temporal patterns of environmental factors and distribution of plant assemblages across a boreal peatland complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we examine the arrangement of plant species across an oligotrophic bog/poor fen peatland complex in the North American boreal plain and the relationships of these species to their physical and chemical environment. A semi‐uniform spatial sampling approach was utilized to describe the species assemblages, pore‐water chemistry and physical condition of 100 plots throughout a single peatland complex. Regardless of sharing the same ground cover of Sphagnum mosses, the remaining species separated into four distinct assemblages, each with unique indicators. These species groups along with associated chemical and physical factors are organized into four ecosites: bog, margin (edge) and two poor fen ecosites. The plant assemblages of this peatland have a complex relationship with numerous gradients, both physical and chemical, including depth to water table, shade, pH, nutrient and base cation. Rather than being homogenous across the landscape, most environmental variables exhibit distinct spatial patterns and do so in relationship to the plant assemblages, forming spatially distinct ecosites across the complex. Base cation concentrations play a smaller role than previously thought in differentiating these ecosites, and in addition to shade and depth to water table, nitrogen in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen was highly related to the placement of these ecosites. Many significant chemical factors appear related to evaporative water loss within the peatland complex, and these chemical factors are used to differentiate the ecosites. However, the mediation of evaporative water loss is due largely to self‐generated responses of the plant assemblages related to shade through plant morphology and peat acrotelm development related to depth to water table. We conclude that plant species and associated environmental gradients act together to form spatially distinct ecosites. The distribution of these ecosites within this large, environmentally complex peatland is largely controlled by differing self‐generated responses along the hydrotopographical gradient of differential water loss.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".