Biological weathering and the long‐term carbon cycle: integrating mycorrhizal evolution and function into the current paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dramatic decline in atmospheric CO2 evidenced by proxy data during the Devonian (416.0-359.2 Ma) and the gradual decline from the Cretaceous (145.5-65.5 Ma) onwards have been linked to the spread of deeply rooted trees and the rise of angiosperms, respectively. But this paradigm overlooks the coevolution of roots with the major groups of symbiotic fungal partners that have dominated terrestrial ecosystems throughout Earth history. The colonization of land by plants was coincident with the rise of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF),while the Cenozoic (c. 65.5-0 Ma) witnessed the rise of ectomycorrhizal fungi (EMF) that associate with both gymnosperm and angiosperm tree roots. Here, we critically review evidence for the influence of AMF and EMF on mineral weathering processes. We show that the key weathering processes underpinning the current paradigm and ascribed to plants are actually driven by the combined activities of roots and mycorrhizal fungi. Fuelled by substantial amounts of recent photosynthate transported from shoots to roots, these fungi form extensive mycelial networks which extend into soil actively foraging for nutrients by altering minerals through the acidification of the immediate root environment. EMF aggressively weather minerals through the additional mechanism of releasing low molecular weight organic chelators. Rates of biotic weathering might therefore be more usefully conceptualized as being fundamentally controlled by the biomass, surface area of contact, and capacity of roots and their mycorrhizal fungal partners to interact physically and chemically with minerals. All of these activities are ultimately controlled by rates of carbon-energy supply from photosynthetic organisms. The weathering functions in leading carbon cycle models require experiments and field studies of evolutionary grades of plants with appropriate mycorrhizal associations. Representation of the coevolution of roots and fungi in geochemical carbon cycle models is required to further our understanding of the role of the biota in Earth's CO2 and climate history.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".