A simple method to assess macrofungal sporocarp biomass for investigating ecological change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The methodologies used for studying macrofungal communities are an eclectic assemblage of many different and unstandardized approaches. In this study we propose a simple, nondestructive but still informative method to assess fungal sporocarp biomass in forested areas. We use the number of fruiting bodies found in the surveyed plot, and data on cap diameter of the species from the literature to calculate a cap area index. We show that this index very strongly correlates with the measured total dry mass of the species obtained from the same plot. We point out that the cap area index provides a more accurate estimation of the epigeous fungal sporocarp biomass than do the species sporocarp numbers. This new methodology allows the spatiotemporal distribution of a fungal community in an ecosystem to be followed. Since sporocarp production responds much more sensitively to environmental changes than does the fine-root vegetative ectomycorrhizal community, it may more quickly reflect whether an ecosystem has been perturbed. It will also allow us to collect data on saprotrophic species. A sporocarp survey can be useful for detecting early changes in the habitat and environment, and give an easily applicable method for conservation biology and ecosystem management.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".