Trait‐based partner selection drives mycorrhizal network assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants and their microbial symbionts are often found to interact non‐randomly in nature, but we have yet to understand the mechanisms responsible for such preferential species associations. Theory predicts that host plants should select symbiotic partners bearing traits complementary to their own, as this should favor cooperation and evolutionary stability of mutualisms. Here, we present the first field‐based empirical test for this hypothesis using arbuscular mycorrhizas (AM), the oldest and most widespread plant symbiosis. Preferential associations occurring within a local plant–AM fungal community could not be predicted by the spatial distributions of interacting partners, nor by gradients in soil properties. Rather, plants with similar traits preferentially hosted similar AM fungi and, likewise, phylogenetically related AM fungi (assumed to have similar functional traits) interacted with similar plants. Our results suggest that trait‐based partner selection may have been a strong force in maintaining plant–AM fungal symbioses since the evolution of land plants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".