From geographic distribution to regeneration: microhabitat regulation of plant niches in peatlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microhabitats play a crucial role in linking macroclimatic conditions with local plant establishment, yet current research often fails to capture the fine-scale processes shaping species’ responses in natural environments. The characteristic repetitive hummock-hollow structures in peatlands provide an ideal model system to test this because the microhabitats differ markedly in hydrologic and nutrient conditions. This study aimed to examine how hummocks and hollows drive species differentiation in geographic distribution, climatic niche, and regeneration niche, and to compare the responses of tracheophytes and bryophytes. We integrated newly collected data with existing global distribution and germination datasets, building a comprehensive database of 41 peatland species of tracheophytes and bryophytes. Based on global occurrence records (GBIF, CVH), we estimated species’ geographic range size and climatic niche. Regeneration niche breadth was further evaluated using dormancy-breaking treatments and germination responses across temperature regimes. At the geographic scale, microhabitat type did not significantly affect species’ geographic range or climatic niche centers (median). Instead, climatic adaptation diverged between taxa: tracheophytes primarily broadened their niche breadth, while bryophytes relied more on niche symmetry (environmental stability). At the regeneration scale, tracheophyte species from variable hummocks exhibited broader regeneration niche through shallow-dormancy strategies, whereas hollow species adopted deep-dormancy “best-bet” strategies. In contrast, bryophytes showed a wider regeneration niche breadth than tracheophytes. Microhabitats do not directly determine species’ macro-distribution but act as environmental filters that shape life-history strategies during regeneration (dormancy and germination), thereby indirectly regulating species niche and distribution. Our results highlight the importance of linking micro-scale processes with geographic scale patterns and demonstrate that tracheophytes and bryophytes adopt fundamentally different adaptive strategies when facing environmental change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".