Why has Phragmites australis persisted in the increasingly saline Gippsland Lakes? A test of three competing hypotheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common reed Phragmites australis is the dominant vascular plant species of the shorelines of the Gippsland Lakes, south-eastern Australia. Although substantial declines have been reported for over 50 years, with increasing salinity posited as the cause, P. australis still occurs around the Gippsland Lakes, including in environments with near-oceanic salinities. The occurrence of P. australis in highly saline environments cannot be explained in terms of either seasonal variations in surface water salinity or a freshwater subsidy provided by intrusions of non-saline groundwater into the root zone. An experimental growth trial with plants of different provenance showed that P. australis grew vigorously even at 8–16 PSU (with maximum aboveground biomass at 2–4 PSU). There was some evidence that specimens from saltier sites were more salt tolerant than those from fresher sites. The selection of salt-tolerant strains is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of P. australis in saline sites. However, anthropogenic salinisation is unlikely to be the only factor involved in the historical loss of reed beds, and lower and more stable water levels following the permanent opening of the Gippsland Lakes to the ocean in 1889 are probably also contributing factors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".