Seasonal and substrate preferences of fungi colonizing leaves in streams: traditional versus molecular evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic hyphomycetes are the main fungal decomposers of plant litter in streams. We compared the importance of substrate (three leaf species, wood) and season on fungal colonization. Substrates were exposed for 12 4-week periods. After recovery, mass loss, fungal biomass and release of conidia by aquatic hyphomycetes were measured. Fungal communities were characterized by counting and identifying released conidia and by extracting and amplifying fungal DNA (ITS2), which was subdivided into phylotypes by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP). Mass loss, fungal biomass and reproduction were positively correlated with stream temperature. Conidial diversity was highest between May and September. Numbers of different phylotypes were more stable. Principal coordinate analyses (PCO) and canonical analyses of principal coordinates (CAP) of presence/absence data (DGGE bands, T-RFLP peaks and conidial species) showed a clear seasonal trend (P<or=0.002) but no substrate effect (P>or=0.88). Season was also a significant factor when proportional similarities of conidial communities or relative intensities of DGGE bands were evaluated (P<or=0.003). Substrate was a significant factor determining DGGE band intensities (P=0.002), but did not significantly affect conidial communities (P=0.50). Both traditional and molecular techniques suggest that strict exclusion of fungi by substrate type is rare, and that presence of different species or phylotypes is governed by season. Biomasses of the various taxa (based on DGGE band intensities) were related to substrate type.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".