MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mutualism variation in the nodulation response to nitrate

2010· article· en· W1557096936 on OpenAlexafffund
Katy D. Heath, Amanda J. Stock, John R. Stinchcombe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLegume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMutualism (biology)RhizobiaBiologyCoevolutionRhizobiumSymbiosisNatural selectionNitrateEcologyEcosystemExperimental evolutionEvolutionary biologySelection (genetic algorithm)BacteriaGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of mutualisms under novel selective pressures will play a key role in ecosystem responses to environmental change. Because fixed nitrogen is traded in plant–rhizobium mutualisms, increasing N availability in the soil is predicted to alter coevolution of these interactions. Legumes typically decrease the number of associations (nodules) with rhizobia in response to nitrate, but the evolutionary dynamics of this response remain unknown. We grew plant and rhizobium genotype combinations in three N environments to assess the coevolutionary potential of the nodule nitrate response in natural communities of plants and rhizobia. We found evidence for coevolutionary genetic variation for nodulation in response to nitrate (G × G × E interaction), suggesting that the mutualism response to N deposition will depend on the combination of partner genotypes. Thus, the nitrate response is not a fixed mechanism in plant–rhizobium symbioses, but instead is potentially subject to natural selection and dynamic coevolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicLegume Nitrogen Fixing SymbiosisFrench-language works237,207