Variations in nitrogen, phosphorus, and δ<sup>15</sup>N in <i>Sphagnum</i> mosses along a climatic and atmospheric deposition gradient in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined concentrations of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) and δ 15 N value in Sphagnum sections Acutifolia and Cuspidata inhabiting hummocks and hollows from eight bogs along a transect from ∼45 to ∼55°N in Ontario and Quebec. The N concentration in Sphagnum declined from south to north, correlating with a decrease in atmospheric N deposition. Although the overall N concentration was larger in hollows than hummocks, the pattern was inconsistent across the sites. There was a proportionally larger decline in P concentration from south to north and an overall larger P concentration in hollows than hummocks, but there were inconsistent differences across the sites. The N:P ratio ranged from 12:1 to 29:1, driven primarily by the variation in P concentration. Ratios of N and P concentration in Sphagnum capitulum:stem averaged 1.2:1, suggesting nutrient resorption from stem to capitulum during growth; the ratio rose with increasing N and P concentration in the capitulum. The δ 15 N value of Sphagnum rose from ∼−6‰ in the south to ∼−1‰ in the north, correlated with the decrease in Sphagnum N concentration and with a rise in the water table. We interpret this to indicate a greater dependence on N 2 -fixation for N acquisition in the northern and wetter sites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".