Hybridization in<i>Populus</i>alters the species composition and interactions of root-colonizing fungi: consequences for host plant performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions among plants and soil microbes can significantly influence plant communities, yet we understand little about how hybridization of plant species might alter these interactions. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of different components of soil microbial communities on plant performance. We tested for feedbacks between soil microbes within a Populus hybridizing system using approaches that allowed us to isolate the effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and root endophytes. We found significant differences among the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal spore communities cultured from Populus angustifolia James, Populus fremontii S. Watson, and their F1hybrids. Populus angustifolia cuttings grew 40% larger when inoculated with AM fungal spores from F1hybrids than with spores from P. fremontii, while growth with spores from P. angustifolia was intermediate. However, parental and hybrid inocula promoted growth equally when soil inoculum was used. Roots inoculated with AM fungal spores alone were colonized principally by AMF, while those inoculated with soil were colonized mostly by dark septate endophytes. These results indicate that genetic variation among hybridizing plant species can influence both microbial communities and their interactions with host plants, but these effects depend upon the type of microbe. Furthermore, our results suggest that interactions among fungi during root colonization may alter the composition and function of the plant microbiome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".