Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities of nursery-inoculated seedlings outplanted on clear-cut sites in northern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seedlings from three conifer species (Pinus contorta Doug. ex Loud. var. latifolia Englem., Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, and Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) were planted on two clear-cut sites in Alberta, Canada, after inoculation in the nursery with strains of six different ectomycorrhizal species (Hebeloma longicaudum, Laccaria bicolor,Paxillus involutus,Pisolithus tinctorius,Rhizopogon vinicolor, and Suillus tomentosus). Five and 6 years after planting, morphological characterization and molecular typing techniques (internal transcribed spacer restriction fragment length polymorphism (ITS-RFLP) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers) were used to identify the ectomycorrhizal fungal communities and to assess the occurrence of the inoculated ectomycorrhizal fungi on host roots. Ectomy corrhi zae recovered from the roots of the planted trees on each of the two sites showed little diversity, with a total of 16 and 19 ITS-RFLP patterns corresponding to 11 and 13 ectomycorrhizal taxa, respectively. The most abundant ectomycorrhizal fungi found on colonized roots were ascomycetes and the widespread basidiomycete Amphinema byssoides. Amongst the six introduced fungal strains, only L. bicolor UAMH 8232 was detected on one site after 5 and 6 years, as determined using six SSR markers. Although not detected after 5 years, some of the introduced strains might have had a positive effect on the early growth of the trees before their replacement by competing species, because significant differences in plot volume index were detected between inoculation and control treatments.
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) | 0.001 | 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".