Growth and secondary compound investments in the epiphytic lichens<i>Lobaria pulmonaria</i>and<i>Hypogymnia occidentalis</i>transplanted along an altitudinal gradient in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated altitudinal variation (550–1650 m) in relative growth rates (RGR) and carbon-based secondary compounds (CBSC) in the cephalolichen Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm. and the chlorolichen Hypogymnia occidentalis L. H. Pike transplanted for 14 months in a U-shaped valley in inland southern British Columbia. Prior to transplantation, half of the thalli were treated with phosphorus (P) to examine effects of P on carbon allocation. Growth in L. pulmonaria was substantially higher in the toe-slope position, corresponding to much higher bark pH. Sixty-four percent of the variation in RGR was accounted for by positive pH effects and adverse effects of direct light exposure in the best subset multiple regression model. For H. occidentalis, 57% of the variation in RGR was accounted for by positive and negative effects of indirect and direct light, respectively. Neither altitude nor P had a noticeable effect on RGR, the former possibly reflecting a trade-off between orographic precipitation and inversion-boosted nocturnal dew in valley bottom localities. Neither was there any correlation between altitude and CBSCs, although treatment with P did significantly trigger secondary metabolism in L. pulmonaria, but not in H. occidentalis. No significant intraspecific relationship between growth and CBSC investments was noted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".