Shading contributes to <i>Sphagnum</i> decline in response to warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experimental warming of an ombrotrophic bog in northern Minnesota has caused a rapid decline in the productivity and areal cover of Sphagnum mosses, affecting whole‐ecosystem carbon balance and biogeochemistry. Direct effects of elevated temperature and the attendant drying are most likely the primary cause of the effects on Sphagnum, but there may also be responses to the increased shading from shrubs, which increased with increasing temperature. To evaluate the independent effects of reduction in light availability and deposition of shrub litter on Sphagnum productivity, small plots with shrubs removed were laid out adjacent to the warming experiment on hummocks and hollows in three blocks and with five levels of shading. Four plots were covered with neutral density shade cloth to simulate shading from shrubs of 30%–90% reduction in light; one plot was left open. Growth of Sphagnum angustifolium/fallax and S. divinum declined linearly with increasing shade in hollows, but there was no response to shade on hummocks, where higher irradiance in the open plots may have been inhibitory. Shading caused etiolation of Sphagnum—they were thin and spindly under the deepest shade. A dense mat of shrub litter, corresponding to the amount of shrub litter produced in response to warming, did not inhibit Sphagnum growth or cause increases in potentially toxic base cations. CO2 exchange and chlorophyll‐a fluorescence of S. angustifolium/fallax from the 30% and 90% shade cloth plots were measured in the laboratory. Light response curves indicate that maximal light saturated photosynthesis was 42% greater for S. angustifolium/fallax grown under 30% shade cloth relative to plants grown under 90% shade cloth. The response of Sphagnum growth in response to increasing shade is consistent with the hypothesis that increased shade resulting from shrub expansion in response to experimental warming contributed to reduced Sphagnum growth.
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 | 0.000 | 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".