Is there an association between root architecture and mycorrhizal growth response?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".