Mycorrhizal ecology on serpentine soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Serpentine ecosystems support different, often unique, plant communities; however, we know little about the soil organisms that associate with these ecosystems. Mycorrhizas, mutualistic symbioses between fungi and roots, are critical to nutrient cycling and energy exchange below ground.Aims: We address three hypotheses: H1, diversity of mycorrhizal fungi in serpentine soils mirrors above-ground plant diversity; H2, the morphology of mycorrhizas and fungi on serpentine soils differs from that on non-serpentine; and H3, mycorrhizal fungal communities of the same or closely related hosts differ between serpentine and non-serpentine soils.Methods: This review focuses on whether plant diversity on serpentine soils correlates with the below ground diversity of mycorrhizal fungi.Results: Studies show that plants and fungi formed abundant ectomycorrhizal and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbioses on and off serpentine soils. No serpentine-endemic fungi were identified. Molecular analyses indicate distinct serpentine isolates for Cenococcum geophilum and for Acaulospora, suggesting adaptation to serpentine soils. While fungal sporocarp assemblages on serpentine sites resembled those off serpentine, fruiting of hypogeous fungi was greatly reduced.Conclusions: Ectomycorrhizal fungal communities did not differ between soil types; however, arbuscular mycorrhizal communities differed in some cases but not others. The additive response to multiple factors, described as the serpentine syndrome, may explain part of the response by fungi.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".