Epiphytic bryophytes on European aspen<i>Populus tremula</i>in old-growth forests in northeastern Finland and in adjacent sites in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the occurrence and cover of epiphytic bryophytes and one lichen species (Lobaria pulmonaria (L.) Hoffm.) growing on Populus tremula L. trunks. Our aim was to explore the spatial scales where epiphyte species respond to their environment. At the landscape scale, fragmented Finnish old-growth forests close to the Russian border and farther west in a heavily fragmented landscape were compared with Russian sites with more continuous old-growth forest landscapes to assess the effect of landscape structure on epiphyte assemblages. We studied factors affecting populations at the level of individual sites and local habitat patches within the forests. Twelve sites were surveyed for epiphytes. We estimated epiphyte occurrence from 353 Populus tremula trunks. There seemed to be only minor differences in the structure of epiphyte assemblages between the three landscapes surveyed. Species richness varied also independently of the landscape structure but was positively related to regional Populus tremula abundance (alpha diversity) and the size of the substrate trunk (point diversity). At the regional scale, the most important factor affecting the occurrence of epiphytes was the abundance of Populus tremula. At the local scale, the size of the Populus tremula surveyed and tree density around the trunk surveyed correlated positively with the occurrence of some species. The size and abundance of Populus tremula as well as tree density are the most important factors for maintaining viable populations of the studied species.Key words: biodiversity, boreal forest, Bryophyte, forest management, landscape structure, Lobaria pulmonaria.
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) | 0.000 | 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".