Environmental stresses mediate endophyte–grass interactions in a boreal archipelago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Both evolutionary theory and empirical evidence from agricultural research support the view that asexual, vertically transmitted fungal endophytes are typically plant mutualists that develop high infection frequencies within host grass populations. In contrast, endophyte–grass interactions in natural ecosystems are more variable, spanning the range from mutualism to antagonism and comparatively little is known about their range of response to environmental stress. 2. We examined patterns in endophyte prevalence and endophyte–grass interactions across nutrient and grazing (from Greylag and Canada geese) gradients in 15 sites with different soil moisture levels in 13 island populations of the widespread grass Festuca rubra in a boreal archipelago in Sweden. 3. In the field, endophyte prevalence levels were generally low (range = 10–53%) compared with those reported from agricultural systems. Under mesic‐moist conditions endophyte prevalence was constantly low (mean prevalence = 15%) and was not affected by grazing pressure or nutrient availability. In contrast, under conditions of drought, endophyte prevalence increased from 10% to 53% with increasing nutrient availability and increasing grazing pressure. 4. In the field, we measured the production of flowering culms, as a proxy for host fitness, to determine how endophyte‐infected plants differed from uninfected plants. At dry sites, endophyte infection did not affect flowering culm production. In contrast, at mesic‐moist sites production of flowering culms in endophyte‐infected plants increased with the covarying effects of increasing nutrient availability and grazing pressure, indicating that the interaction switched from antagonistic to mutualistic. 5. A concurrent glasshouse experiment showed that in most situations, the host appears to incur some costs for harbouring endophytes. Uninfected grasses generally outperformed infected grasses (antagonistic interaction), while infected grasses outperformed uninfected grasses (mutualistic interaction) only in dry, nutrient‐rich conditions. Nutrient and water addition affected tiller production, leaf number and leaf length differently, suggesting that tillers responded with different strategies. This emphasizes that several response variables are needed to evaluate the interaction. 6. Synthesis. This study found complex patterns in endophyte prevalence that were not always correlated with culm production. These contrasting patterns suggest that the direction and strength of selection on infected plants is highly variable and depends upon a suite of interacting environmental variables that may fluctuate in the intensity of their impact, during the course of the host life cycle.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".