Testing for mycorrhizal fungi-plant-ant indirect effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has demonstrated indirect effects between mycorrhizal fungi and insect herbivores and pollinators. The existence of indirect effects between mycorrhizal fungi and protection-for-food mutualists, such as extrafloral nectar-foraging ‘bodyguard ants’, is unknown. In this study, we examined the potential for indirect effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on aggressive ant bodyguards, mediated by changes in the expression of extrafloral nectaries of a shared host plant. We found that mycorrhizal plants grew larger and produced more extrafloral nectaries compared to their non-mycorrhizal counterparts. The difference in the number of nectaries between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants, however, was too small to elicit differences in ant attendance. In spite of the lack of a significant indirect effect of mycorrhizal fungi on ant attendance, mycorrhizal plants suffered damage to a significantly greater proportion of their leaves compared to non-mycorrhizal plants. This result likely stems from other (non-ant-mediated) indirect effects of mycorrhizal fungi on herbivores.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".