So close and yet so far away: long‐distance dispersal events govern bryophyte metacommunity reassembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Metapopulation dynamics have been used to explain bryophyte dispersal patterns and they predict that population abundances vary with the spatial distribution of habitat and with species traits. However, results from stand and landscape studies are contradictory as both distance‐dependent and distance‐independent patterns have been found. These studies have typically included only a few species, which limits interspecies comparison. It is the time to investigate bryophyte dispersal at the metacommunity scale. We studied bryophyte dispersal patterns in a system made up of burned matrices containing unburned residual forest patches. The importance of short‐ versus long‐distance dispersal was examined by comparing extant and propagule rain communities in residual forest patches of three fire sites using both species and life strategies. Extant and propagule rain communities were distinct. Several propagule rain species, of all life strategies, did not originate from the closest extant community, suggesting that regional dispersal events are important, following the inverse isolation hypothesis. Temporal, spatial and structural characteristics of the environment had a greater influence on dispersal than distance, which only influenced similarity patterns at the regional scale, highlighting the importance of propagule source attributes for the conservation of bryophyte metacommunities. Synthesis . Long‐distance dispersal may be the rule and not the exception in bryophyte metacommunities. Therefore, bryophyte metacommunity dynamics depend on several dispersal scales, and residual forest patches can contribute both to local and regional diaspore clouds. Species’ environmental tolerance during establishment and their ability to produce copious amounts of spores may be more important filters in bryophyte metacommunity dynamics than dispersal distance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".