MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757235483 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0113

The effects of bark quality on corticolous lichen community composition in urban parks of southern Ontario

2017· article· en· W2757235483 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lyman L. McDonald, Mariel Van Woudenberg, Briann Dorin, Aimée Adcock, R. Troy McMullin, Karl Cottenie

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsLichenBark (sound)BiodiversityBiologyBotanyTaxonPinus <genus>EcologyForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree bark characteristics influence lichen colonization. To better understand how urban parks can be managed to maximize lichen biodiversity, we examined trees in seven parks throughout the City of Guelph in southern Ontario. We measured bark characteristics and lichen communities on four common tree species that have a wide range of pH: Acer platanoides L., Acer × freemanii E. Murray, Pinus resinosa Aiton, and Pinus strobes L. We recorded the lichen species on 99 trees, calculated the pH and fissuring of the bark, and determined the diameter at breast height (DBH) as a proxy for age. Gamma diversity on all trees included 18 lichen taxa. We used graphite bark rubbings analyzed in ImageJ 1.47v to calculate the degree of bark fissuring. We collected bark samples from each tree trunk and determined the acidity with a pH meter. Using multivariate analyses we show that lichen community composition is positively correlated with DBH and tree species, but the degree of fissuring did not have a significant effect. We could not statistically analyze pH independent of tree species, but our results suggest pH is not a significant variable. We show lichen biodiversity in urban parks can be increased by planting a variety of tree species at different ages.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207