Fruiting body and soil rDNA sampling detects complementary assemblage of Agaricomycotina (Basidiomycota, Fungi) in a hemlock‐dominated forest plot in southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first study to assess the diversity and community structure of the Agaricomycotina in an ectotrophic forest using above-ground fruiting body surveys as well as soil rDNA sampling. We recovered 132 molecular operational taxonomic units, or 'species', from fruiting bodies and 66 from soil, with little overlap. Fruiting body sampling primarily recovered fungi from the Agaricales, Russulales, Boletales and Cantharellales. Many of these species are ectomycorrhizal and form large fruiting bodies. Soil rDNA sampling recovered fungi from these groups in addition to taxa overlooked during the fruiting body survey from the Atheliales, Trechisporales and Sebacinales. Species from these groups form inconspicuous, resupinate and corticioid fruiting bodies. Soil sampling also detected fungi from the Hysterangiales that form fruiting bodies underground. Generally, fruiting body and soil rDNA samples recover a largely different assemblage of fungi at the species level; however, both methods identify the same dominant fungi at the genus-order level and ectomycorrhizal fungi as the prevailing type. Richness, abundance, and phylogenetic diversity (PD) identify the Agaricales as the dominant fungal group above- and below-ground; however, we find that molecularly highly divergent lineages may account for a greater proportion of total diversity using the PD measure compared with richness and abundance. Unless an exhaustive inventory is required, the rapidity and versatility of DNA-based sampling may be sufficient for a first assessment of the dominant taxonomic and ecological groups of fungi in forest soil.
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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".