Propagule Sources of Forest Floor Bryophytes: Spatiotemporal Compositional Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roles of bryophyte propagule sources in community composition and structure are poorly understood, but regeneration processes may be critical to the conservation of severely disturbed communities such as those in Acadian forests managed for timber production. Our research objectives were to 1) describe the compositions of the aerial diaspore rain and the buried propagule bank at two locations, 2) compare compositional turnover (β-diversity) among assemblages (i.e., changes in composition across sample units), and 3) investigate potential temporal variability across a growing season within the aerial diaspore rain. A case study approach was used to 4) determine the potential recovery of two extant communities based on available propagules. Compositions of propagule sources were determined by emergence and compared to that of the extant community sampled intensively, i.e., within two grids (1 m2 and 1.69 m2) of contiguous 100 cm2 cells established on the forest floor of mature mixed forests in southeastern New Brunswick, Canada. Overall, 51 taxa (0–12 taxa per 100 cm2) were found in the aerial diaspore rain and buried propagule banks, 36 taxa (0–9 taxa per 100 cm2) in the extant community. High degree of turnover among sample units and seasonal variability within the aerial diaspore rain indicate that a very intensive sampling protocol is necessary for accurate description of bryophyte propagule sources. We also argue that the emergence method is essential, given the taxonomic richness of these propagule sources. Of the two sources of propagules, the aerial diaspore rain across the growing season was more similar to the composition of the extant community than was the buried propagule bank.
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".