MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1835804752 · doi:10.1139/b06-097

High diversity of fungi recovered from the roots of mature tanoak (<i>Lithocarpus densiflorus</i>) in northern California

2006· article· en· W1835804752 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah E. Bergemann, Matteo Garbelotto

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsBiologyBotanySpecies richnessInternal transcribed spacerRussulaTaxonEcologyRibosomal RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We collected mature tanoak ( Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. &amp; 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations84
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207