MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1764859033 · doi:10.1139/b06-087

Stand age and sampling year effect on the fungal fruit body community in <i>Pinus pinaster</i> forests in central Spain

2006· article· en· W1764859033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luz Marina Fernández-Toirán, Teresa Ágreda, José Miguel Olano

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessChronosequencePinus pinasterEcological successionEcologyTrophic levelBiologyGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of fungal community succession in forests is still insufficiently known, especially in Mediterranean ecosystems. To reveal successional patterns, we studied changes in aboveground sporocarp composition in managed Pinus pinaster Ait. forests across a stand age chronosequence from 5 to more than 90 years in Soria province (Central Spain). We evaluated the effect of yearly conditions and stand age on species richness, composition, and trophic groups. All aboveground sporocarps were collected and identified in 21 plots, each measuring 150 m 2 , placed in a random stand age-stratified survey. Sampling was performed weekly in the autumn during 6 years (1997–2002). The effect of year and stand age on species richness was analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance and change in composition. Changes in community composition were evaluated via canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). The response of different trophic groups was analyzed using ANOVA with age as a fixed factor. Fungal community richness increased with stand age. This increase was related to the rise in humicolous saprotroph and mycorrhizal species. The presence of parasitic and lignicolous fungi was always very low, probably as a result of forest management. Yearly conditions exerted a stronger effect than stand age on aboveground sporocarp community richness and composition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations70
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207