Mycorrhizal associations of <i>Salix repens</i> L. communities in succession of dune ecosystems. I. Above-ground and below-ground views of ectomycorrhizal fungi in relation to soil chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diversity of ectomycorrhizal (EcM) communities in 16 stands of Salix repens L. growing under a variety of environmental conditions was studied by repeated sampling of EcM sporocarps and ectomycorrhizas, to assess the possible correspondence between above- and below-ground views of fungal taxa. Above- and below-ground views were also related to soil chemistry. Sporocarps of 78 taxa of EcM fungi belonging to 12 genera were found. The majority of the species found, especially those of the Cortinariaceae, were host-specific for Salicaceae. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) based on fungal species showed that only pH and the concentration of available phosphorus significantly contributed to the variation explained. CCA based on fungal genera indicated that pH and moisture significantly contributed to the variation explained. Fifteen different EcM morphotypes were recognized and morphotype composition was different on two sampling dates. CCA based on morphotype composition yielded different results depending on sampling date. The numbers of EcM sporocarps and root tips were not correlated (on either sampling date). Diversity above ground (species and genus) was also not correlated with morphotype diversity below ground on either sampling date. Therefore, neither diversity nor abundance of above-ground EcM fungi can be used to assess below-ground EcM diversity or abundance. Lack of correlation in below-ground parameters on different sampling dates indicates substantial variation. Causes for temporal variation are discussed. The importance of investigating both above- and below-ground variability in EcM communities is stressed.
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".