Microsite conditions in retrogressive thaw slumps may facilitate increased seedling recruitment in the Alaskan Low Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Low Arctic tundra, thermal erosion of ice-rich permafrost soils (thermokarst) has increased in frequency since the 1980s. Retrogressive thaw slumps (RTS) are thermokarst disturbances forming large open depressions on hillslopes through soil wasting and vegetation displacement. Tall (>0.5 m) deciduous shrubs have been observed in RTS a decade after disturbance. RTS may provide conditions suitable for seedling recruitment, which may contribute to Arctic shrub expansion. We quantified in situ seedling abundance, and size and viability of soil seedbanks in greenhouse trials for two RTS chronosequences near lakes on Alaska's North Slope. We hypothesized recent RTS provide microsites for greater recruitment than mature RTS or undisturbed tundra. We also hypothesized soil seedbanks demonstrate quantity-quality trade-offs; younger seedbanks contain smaller numbers of mostly viable seed that decrease in viability as seed accumulates over time. We found five times as many seedlings in younger RTS as in older RTS, including birch and willow, and no seedlings in undisturbed tundra. Higher seedling counts were associated with bare soil, warmer soils, higher soil available nitrogen, and less plant cover. Seedbank viability was unrelated to size. Older seedbanks were larger at one chronosequence, with no difference in percent germination. At the other chronosequence, germination was lower from older seedbanks but seedbank size was not different. Seedbank germination was positively associated with in situ seedling abundance at one RTS chronosequence, suggesting postdisturbance revegetation from seedbanks. Thermal erosion may be important for recruitment in tundra by providing bare microsites that are warmer, more nutrient-rich, and less vegetated than in undisturbed ground. Differences between two chronosequences in seedbank size, viability, and species composition suggest disturbance interacts with local conditions to form seedbanks. RTS may act as seedling nurseries to benefit many Arctic species as climate changes, particularly those that do not produce persistent seed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".