Field colonies of leaf‐cutting ants select plant materials containing low abundances of endophytic fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endophytic fungi live symbiotically in the tissues of plants. Although a large amount of evidence suggests a mutualistic role for vertically transmitted endophytic fungi in agronomic grasses, the role of horizontally transmitted endophytic fungi as mutualists has been challenged. Recent studies, however, have shown that horizontally transmitted endophytic fungi can act as mutualists to their plant hosts by providing defense against pathogens and defoliators. In particular, several experimental studies have shown that endophytic fungi interact negatively with leaf‐cutting ants and their fungal cultivar, but these studies were performed under laboratory conditions. Using field colonies of Atta colombica in Central Panama, we measured the fungal endophyte content in the forage material of leaf‐cutting ants and compared it to ambient endophyte levels. We then used the collected data to model the area of plant material containing endophytes that enters a mature colony daily. We found that mature colonies collect leaf material that is 20% lower in endophyte abundance than surrounding leaves. A similar pattern was observed for newly emerged colonies. Our model suggests that via ant foraging preferences, leaf‐cutting ants reduce the possible area of material containing endophytes entering the colony by 33%. Our results provide further evidence for a negative interaction between leaf‐cutting ants and horizontally transmitted endophytes, suggesting that fungal endophytes have a defensive role in tropical plants by influencing leaf‐cutting ant foraging preferences.
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".