MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054617900 · doi:10.1111/nph.12927

Is there an association between root architecture and mycorrhizal growth response?

2014· review· en· W2054617900 on OpenAlexafffund
Hafiz Maherali

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of GuelphNational Evolutionary Synthesis CenterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySymbiosisColonizationNutrientBotanyRoot hairPhylogenetic treeMycorrhizaInoculationEcologyHorticultureBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The symbiosis between arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi and plants is evolutionarily widespread. The response of plant growth to inoculation by these fungi (mycorrhizal growth response; MGR) is highly variable, ranging from positive to negative. Some of this variation is hypothesized to be associated with root structure and function. Specifically, species with a coarse root architecture, and thus a limited intrinsic capacity to absorb soil nutrients, are expected to derive the greatest growth benefit from inoculation with AM fungi. To test this hypothesis, previously published literature and phylogenetic information were combined in a meta-analysis to examine the magnitude and direction of relationships among several root architectural traits and MGR. Published studies differed in the magnitude and direction of relationships between root architecture and MGR. However, when combined, the overall relationship between MGR and allocation to roots, root diameter, root hair length and root hair density did not differ significantly from zero. These findings indicate that possessing coarse roots is not necessarily a predictor of plant growth response to AM fungal colonization. Root architecture is therefore unlikely to limit the evolution of variation in MGR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations160
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207