Host identity is a dominant driver of mycorrhizal fungal community composition during ecosystem development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the response of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities to ecosystem development. We use a long-term soil chronosequence that includes ecosystem progression and retrogression to quantify the importance of host plant identity as a factor driving fungal community composition during ecosystem development. We identified arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant species from 50 individual roots from each of 10 sites spanning 5-120 000 yr of ecosystem age using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP), Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities were highly structured by ecosystem age. There was strong niche differentiation, with different groups of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) being characteristic of early succession, ecosystem progression and ecosystem retrogression. Fungal alpha diversity decreased with ecosystem age, whereas beta diversity was high at early stages and lower in subsequent stages. A total of 39% of the variance in fungal communities was explained by host plant and site age, 29% of which was attributed to host and the interaction between host and site (24% and 5%, respectively). The strong response of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to ecosystem development appears to be largely driven by plant host identity, supporting the concept that plant and fungal communities are tightly coupled rather than independently responding to habitat.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".