MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1767861135 · doi:10.1139/b2012-086

Effect of gut passage by two highland rodents on spore activity and mycorrhiza formation of two species of ectomycorrhizal fungi (<i>Laccaria trichodermophora</i> and <i>Suillus tomentosus</i>)

2012· article· en· W1767861135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francisco J. Pérez, Citlalli Castillo‐Guevara, Gema Galindo-Flores, Mariana Cuautle, Arturo Estrada‐Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsBiologyMycorrhizaEctomycorrhizaBotanyEpigealSporeArbuscular mycorrhizaSymbiosisBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on mycophagy has focused mainly on fungi with hypogeous fruiting bodies, while studies on epigeous fruiting bodies are rare. We evaluated spore activity and capacity to establish mycorrhizal associations for the ectomycorrhizal fungi Laccaria trichodermophora Mueller and Suillus tomentosus (Kauffman) Singer, Snell and Dick (both of which produce epigeous fruiting bodies) after being consumed by the mice Peromyscus alstoni Merrian and Peromyscus maniculatus Wagner. Passage through the digestive tract of both rodent species reduced spore activity of S. tomentosus but increased spore activity of L. trichodermophora. In contrast, passage through the digestive tract of P. alstoni increased the percentage of mycorrhiza formation by S. tomentosus, whereas mycorrhiza formation by L. trichodermophora decreased following gut passage in either species of mice. These results show that the studied rodent species have differential effects on mycorrhiza formation by two species of fungi with epigeous fruiting bodies and may play a significant role in maintaining mycorrhizal communities and healthy forest ecosystems in central Mexico.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207