Light availability and soil source influence ectomycorrhizal fungal communities on oak seedlings grown in oak- and hemlock-associated soilsContribution No. 225 of the Louis Calder Center and Biological Station, Fordham University, Armonk, New York.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forests exhibit spatial heterogeneity in plant composition and light, which may influence ectomycorrhizal fungal (ECM) communities. We investigated whether light and soil source affect ECM colonization and community properties on red oak ( Quercus rubra L.) seedlings. Seedlings were grown under 10%, 45%, and full sunlight in soils removed beneath red oak and eastern hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr.) trees. Between soils, colonization and diversity were significantly greater in intermediate–high versus low light. Across light levels, colonization, richness, and diversity were greater on seedlings grown in oak versus hemlock soils. The frequency of seedlings colonized by three of the four most common morphotypes was more responsive to light in oak versus hemlock soil. Colonization differences between soil sources were associated with differences in richness, which may in turn reflect host specificity and fine root length differences. Increasing colonization with increasing light was associated with increased richness, which in turn may reflect increased carbon allocation to roots. Results suggest that differences in responses of individual ECM morphotypes coupled with host responses to light and soil source may influence ECM colonization and diversity. Changes in ECM colonization and diversity could in turn affect seedling recruitment, especially for seedlings encountering variable light regimes and host species.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".