Variation in establishment success for American mistletoe [<i>Phoradendron leucarpum</i> (Raf.) Reveal & M.C. Johnst. (Viscaceae)] appears most likely to predict its distribution in Virginia and North Carolina, United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersal limitation and variation in habitat suitability may determine an association of American mistletoe [ Phoradendron leucarpum (Raf.) Reveal & M.C. Johnst. (Viscaceae)] with forested wetlands in Virginia and North Carolina, United States. Here, we first tested the alternative hypothesis that variation in host availability drives this habitat relationship. We used a generalized linear model to show a positive effect of forested wetland habitat on American mistletoe occurrence after accounting for both variation in host availability and differences among regions in host use. We then used seed sowing experiments to quantify how light availability and flood regime determine the viability of American mistletoe, allowing us to evaluate the potential for establishment limitation to determine this habitat relationship. Light availability predicted establishment rates but % canopy openness did not predict seed germination rates. Thus, variation in the ability for American mistletoe to establish across forested habitat types with different local light availabilities is a potentially important mechanism in determining its distribution.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".