Comparison of ericoid and ectomycorrhizal colonization and ectomycorrhizal morphotypes in mixed conifer and pygmy forests on the northern California coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the northern California coast, mixed conifer forests occur on younger, relatively fertile terraces, whereas mesic and hydric pygmy forests occur on older, infertile, poorly drained terraces. We characterized mycorrhizal associations, ectomycorrhizal morphotypes, and colonization levels for nine plant species from three plant communities (mixed conifer, mesic pygmy, and hydric pygmy). Pinus contorta ssp. bolanderi (Parl.) Critchf. and Pinus muricata D. Don were ectomycorrhizal; all ericaceous plants formed ericoid mycorrhizas except Arctostaphylos nummularia A. Gray, which formed only arbutoid mycorrhizas. Arbuscular mycorrhizas were not observed, even on Cupressus goveniana ssp. pigmaea (Lemmon) J. Bartel. Ectomycorrhizal colonization was significantly lower in pygmy forests, while ericoid mycorrhizal colonization was significantly higher, as compared with the mixed conifer forest. Ectomycorrhizal and ericoid mycorrhizal colonization was greater on hummocks than in swales at hydric pygmy sites. Thirteen distinct ectomycorrhizal and arbutoid mycorrhizal morphotypes were observed: eight only on Pinus spp. and two only on A. nummularia. Two morphotypes were found only in mixed conifer, and eight were found only in pygmy communities. Distribution of morphotypes may reveal habitat and (or) host adaptation by ectomycorrhizal fungi.Key words: ectomycorrhizal morphotypes, ericoid mycorrhizas, pygmy forest, Ericaceae, mycorrhizal colonization, low-fertility soils.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".