MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048794446 · doi:10.7557/2.40.1.4636

A review of reindeer lichen (Cladonia subgenus Cladina) linear growth rates

2020· review· en· W3048794446 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Troy McMullin, Sean B. Rapai

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsLichenCladoniaBiomass (ecology)BorealEnvironmental scienceEcologyTaigaTundraArcticBiologyPhysical geographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cladonia subgenus Cladina (the reindeer lichens) can be a dominant part of terrestrial ecosystems worldwide. They are particularly abundant in arctic-alpine and boreal regions, where they are a primary food source for woodland caribou/reindeer in winter months. Determining the growth rates of reindeer lichen is important for understanding and managing lichen regeneration following disturbances such as timber harvesting, mining, grazing, and wildfire. Regeneration and rehabilitation rates can be calculated with greater accuracy when growth rates are well understood. We provide a summary of 17 studies from 6 countries that determined the linear growth rates of three reindeer lichen groups, Cladonia arbuscula/mitis (mean = 4.7 mm/yr.), C. rangiferina/ C. stygia (mean = 5.1 mm/yr.), and C. stellaris (mean = 4.8 mm/yr.). We use linear growth rates as a proxy for over-all growth and biomass. Variables found to influence lichen growth rates are also discussed, which include light, moisture, temperature, air pollution, acid rain, precipitation, snow accumulation, substrate, age of individuals, and type of disturbance. These results can assist land managers in developing more accurate strategies for restoring lichens in disturbed areas.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207