Distribution patterns of sedges in subarctic fens : ecological and phylogenetic perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to assess current distributional patterns of species within a community, while taking into account species' evolutionary histories, as reflected in their phylogenetic relationships. The hypothesis is that closely related species segregate along environmental gradients, either due to historic evolutionary divergence of their niches, or to ecological processes presently occurring within a community. Distribution along environmental gradients was compared to phylogenetic structure of the 27 sedge species (Cyperaceae) growing in the subarctic fen communities of Schefferville, northern Quebec. Field data suggest that within these fens, sedges mostly differentiate along gradients of rooting depth and pH. Species growing in similar (micro)habitats often belong to different taxonomic sedge clades, and species belonging to the same clade usually differentiate on at least one environmental gradient. Further comparison of natural distribution to responses under greenhouse experimental conditions for four selected Carex species suggests that the two relatives in section Limosae differ in their tolerance ranges to environmental conditions due to past evolutionary events, while the two members of section Paniceae differentiate along environmental gradients in nature due to ongoing ecological processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".