Influences of fire on forest soil fungal communitiesThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Forum on Towards Sustainable Forestry — The Living Soil: Soil Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires and prescribed burns constitute widespread and potentially destructive disturbances in forest ecosystems. Fire-related effects on aboveground ecosystem components are well established, and it is known that fire can have both a direct and an indirect influence on the edaphic environment, but the effects of fire on soil-dwelling fungi are poorly understood. We review the disparate literature relating to fire effects on soil fungi, with emphasis on forest environments. A variety of effects have been reported, including altered fungal community structure along with increased or decreased mycorrhizal colonization of roots. Such effects, along with their duration, appear to be site- and (or) fire-specific, but are likely to be greater in the upper soil horizons. Where repeated burning occurs, the effects on soil fungal communities appear to be more pronounced with more frequent burning. Although fire may effect structural changes in soil fungal communities, the functional significance of such changes at the ecosystem level remains difficult to assess.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".