High diversity of fungi recovered from the roots of mature tanoak (<i>Lithocarpus densiflorus</i>) in northern California
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We collected mature tanoak ( Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehder) roots from five stands to characterize the relative abundance and taxonomic richness of root-associated fungi. Fungi were identified using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), cloning, and sequencing of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and 28S rDNA. A total of 382 cloned PCR inserts were successfully sequenced and then classified into 119 taxa. Of these taxa, 82 were basidiomycetes, 33 were ascomycetes, and 4 were zygomycetes. Thirty-one of the ascomycete sequences were identified as Cenococcum geophilum Fr. with overall richness of 22 ITS types. Other ascomycetes that form mycorrhizal associations were identified including Wilcoxina and Tuber as well as endophytes such as Lachnum , Cadophora , Phialophora , and Phialocephela . The most abundant mycorrhizal groups were Russulaceae ( Lactarius , Macowanites , Russula ) and species in the Thelephorales ( Bankera , Boletopsis , Hydnellum , Tomentella ). Our study demonstrates that tanoak supports a high diversity of ectomycorrhizal fungi with comparable species richness to that observed in Quercus root communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".