Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities in an <i>Abies firma</i> forest, with special reference to ectomycorrhizal associations between seedlings and mature trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities of both seedlings and mature trees of Abies firma Sieb. et Zucc. were studied based on morphological and molecular analyses of ectomycorrhizal (ECM) roots. A total of 142 seedlings and 28 soil cores were collected from a 10 m × 30 m plot, and 37 morphotypes were recorded from seedlings and 23 from mature trees. A morphotype, type 21, formed by an unidentified fungus that is likely a Russula species, was dominant on both seedlings (30% of the total number of the ECM roots detected) and mature trees (56%) and overlapped them spatially, suggesting a hyphal linkage between mature trees and seedlings in the plot. A total of 12 morphotypes were recorded from soil blocks underneath fruiting bodies of undescribed Russula sp. 1, the dominant aboveground fruiting body in the plot, among which type 21 was the most abundant. The pattern of restriction fragment length polymorphism of this type was identical to that of the fruiting body of Russula sp. 1. These results indicate that Russula sp. 1 was the dominant ECM fungus associated with both mature trees and seedlings and would play an important role in the dynamics and maintenance of this Abies-dominated forest site.Key words: Abies firma, ectomycorrhizal fungal community, morphotype, PCR-RFLP analysis, tree age.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".