Ectomycorrhizal fungi and exogenous auxins influence root and mycorrhiza formation of Scots pine hypocotyl cuttings in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the ability of the ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi, Pisolithus tinctorius (Pers.) Coker and Couch and Paxillus involutus (Batsch) Fr. (Strain H), to produce indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and to affect the formation and growth of roots on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) hypocotyl cuttings in vitro. Effects of indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) and the auxin transport inhibitor, 2,3,5-triiodobenzoic acid (TIBA), on rooting and the cutting-fungus interaction were also studied. Both fungi produced IAA in the absence of exogenous tryptophan, but the mycelium and culture filtrate of Pisolithus tinctorius contained higher concentrations of free and conjugated IAA than the mycelium and culture filtrate of Paxillus involutus. Inoculation with either fungus or short-term application of culture filtrate of either fungus to the base of hypocotyl cuttings enhanced root formation. Inoculation with either fungus was even more effective in enhancing root formation than treatment of the hypocotyl bases with IBA. Fungal IAA production was not directly correlated with root formation, because rooting was enhanced more by Paxillus involutus than by Pisolithus tinctorius. This suggests that, in addition to IAA, other fungal components play an important role in root formation. Treatment with 5 microM TIBA increased the rooting percentage of non-inoculated cuttings, as well as of cuttings inoculated with Pisolithus tinctorius, perhaps as a result of accumulation of IAA at the cutting base. However, the marked reduction in growth of Pisolithus tinctorius in the presence of TIBA suggests that the effects of TIBA on rooting are complicated and not solely related to IAA metabolism. The high IAA-producer, Pisolithus tinctorius, formed mycorrhizas, and the IBA treatment increased mycorrhizal frequency in this species, whereas TIBA decreased it. Paxillus involutus did not form mycorrhizas, indicating that a low concentration of IAA together with other fungal components were sufficient to stimulate formation and growth of the roots, but not the formation of ECM symbiosis.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".