Lichen colonization in natural gap disturbances and old growth stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lichen colonization was studied in small (1-3 ha) natural gap disturbances embedded in a matrix of old growth cedar-hemlock forest in east central British Columbia, Canada. Lichen biomass, in relation to stand structural attributes, was examined to understand the role of microclimate, substrate quality, and dispersal capability in lichen colonization. Regenerating trees, approximately 100 years old and of similar structure, in the gap disturbance stands and in the old growth matrix were compared for lichen composition, abundance, and distribution. There was no difference in total lichen biomass between regenerating trees in the gap stands and the old growth stands. However, analysis of the individual functional groups (Alectoria, Bryoria, Foliose, and Cyanolichen) revealed distinct differences between the two stand types. The Bryoria functional group was more abundant in the crowns of regenerating trees in the gap disturbance stands and was distributed vertically through a larger proportion of the tree crown. The Cyanolichen functional group occurred more frequently on the regenerating trees in old growth stands. The Alectoria and Foliose functional groups did not differ significantly in biomass or in distribution between the two tree classes. Additional comparisons showed that tree size (amount of available substrate) positively affected lichen loading, while substrate type (foliated or non-foliated substrates) had no effect. Stand-level projections for arboreal lichen biomass indicated that old growth stands had 19% more biomass and contained greater species diversity than gap stands owning to the abundant cyanolichen community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".