Peatland bryophyte responses to increased light from black spruce removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ecohydrological impact of tree‐canopy removal on moss and peat, which provide a principal carbon store, is just starting to be understood. Different mosses have contrasting contributions to carbon and water fluxes (e.g., Sphagnum fuscum, Pleurozium schreberi) and are strongly influenced by tree‐canopy cover. Changes in tree‐canopy cover may therefore lead to long‐term shifts in species composition and associated ecohydrological function. However, the medium‐term response to such disturbance, the associated lag in this transition to a new ecohydrological and biogeochemical regime, is not understood in detail. We investigate this medium‐term (4 years) ecohydrological, biogeochemical, and species compositional response to tree‐canopy removal using a randomized plot design within a northern peatland. This is the only study to test for the influence of increased light alone. We demonstrate that changes in treatment plots 4 years after tree‐canopy removal were not significant. Notably, P. schreberi and S. fuscum remained within their respective plots post treatment, and there was no significant difference in plot resistance to evapotranspiration or carbon exchange. Results show that tree‐canopy removal alone has little impact on bryophyte ecohydrology in the short or medium‐term. This resistance to disturbance contrasts strongly with short‐term changes observed within mineral soils, suggesting that concurrent shifts in the large scale hydrology induced within such disturbances are necessary to cause rapid ecohydrological transitions. Understanding this lagged response is critical to determine the strength of medium to long‐term negative ecohydrological feedbacks within peatlands in addition to carbon and water fluxes on a decadal timescale in response to disturbance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".