Influence of tree species and salvaged soils on the recovery of ectomycorrhizal fungi in upland boreal forest restoration after surface mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface mining in the Canadian boreal forest involves the removal of vegetation and soils, resulting in the local loss of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungi are critical to ecosystem processes; however, their recovery following reclamation is not well understood. This study investigated the importance of reclamation cover soils (forest floor material, peat, and subsoil) and tree seedling species (Populus tremuloides Michx., Pinus banksiana Lamb., and Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in structuring the community composition of EM fungi. We used 1-year-old seedlings to assay cover soils in the field for 3 months, and grew seedlings in each of the cover soils in a growth chamber assay for 5 months. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling indicated host identity structured the community composition of EM fungi in the field, while both host identity and cover soil influenced the composition of EM fungi in the growth chamber. However, pre-colonization of seedlings by nursery fungi complicates interpretation of field results. The rate of EM fungus colonization of seedlings collected across both assays was relatively low, approximately 23%. Our results indicate cover soils used in reclamation of surface-mined landscapes retain propagules of EM fungi, and using a wide variety of tree species in upland boreal forest restoration may increase the diversity of EM fungi recovered.
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) | 0.000 | 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".