Moss and lichen asexual propagule dispersal may help to maintain the extant community in boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Asexual propagules produced by mosses and lichens may help to maintain their community composition in boreal forests. Understanding the factors affecting the deposition of asexual propagules and their link with the community composition may reveal how the community is maintained. The goal of this study was to understand how weather, the community of lichens and mosses, the dominant tree species in a stand, substrata, and tree aspect influenced and were linked to the deposition of asexual propagules (quantity, size, and type) in boreal forests. Species richness and cover were assessed for the substrata within the tree stands. Traps attached to trees and the ground (substrata) in balsam fir‐, white spruce‐, and poplar‐dominated stands were used to capture asexual propagules. Species and quantity of trapped asexual propagules were linked to the species richness and cover of the extant community. Propagules captured were dominated by lichen thallus fragments and were smaller and in higher quantities during colder times of the year, and in higher quantities and smaller sizes mostly on trees of conifer stands. Moss propagules were captured in low quantities compared to lichen propagules, on the forest floor, but mostly during warmer times of the year. The dispersal of mosses and lichen asexual propagules helps to maintain and is linked to their community in boreal forests. The linkage between asexual propagule deposition and the community (richness and abundance) was observed among lichen and moss communities on poplar trees, conifer trees, or the forest floor of boreal forest stands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".