Belowground morphology and population dynamics of two forest understory herbs of contrasting growth forms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest understory herbs exhibit a large range of variation in morphology and life history. Here, we expand the reported range of variation by describing the belowground structures of two very different species, Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt. and Chimaphila umbellata (L.) Nutt. We excavated individuals in forests of the Cascade Mountains in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Xerophyllum tenax has short rhizomes but an extensive root system that is exceptionally large among forest understory species. The roots reach 4 m in length and may occupy an area 50 times that of the aboveground canopy. In contrast, C. umbellata has very small roots but an extensive rhizome system. The largest plant we excavated had 57 m of connected rhizomes and still had a seedling source. Both species have long-lived individuals but differ in response to disturbance. On the basis of monitoring 151 permanent 1 m2 plots in an old-growth forest, X. tenax increased only minimally in density over 40 years following tephra deposition from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, whereas the density of C. umbellata increased substantially. The very different morphology of these two species highlights the large range of variation found among forest herbs, which needs to be considered when examining the forest understory.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".