Seasonal trends in the biomass and structure of bryophyte‐associated fungal communities explored by 454 pyrosequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bryophytes are a dominant vegetation component of the boreal forest, but little is known about their associated fungal communities, including seasonal variation within them. Seasonal variation in the fungal biomass and composition of fungal communities associated with three widespread boreal bryophytes was investigated using HPLC assays of ergosterol and amplicon pyrosequencing of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) region of rDNA. The bryophyte phyllosphere community was dominated by Ascomycota. Fungal biomass did not decline appreciably in winter (P=0.272). Significant host-specific patterns in seasonal variation of biomass were detected (P=0.003). Although seasonal effects were not the primary factors structuring community composition, collection date significantly explained (P=0.001) variation not attributed to locality, host, and tissue. Community homogenization and a reduction in turnover occurred with the onset of frost events and subzero air and soil temperatures. Fluctuations in the relative abundance of particular fungal groups seem to reflect the nature of their association with mosses, although conclusions are drawn with caution because of potential methodological bias. The moss-associated fungal community is dynamic, exhibiting seasonal turnover in composition and relative abundance of different fungal groups, and significant fungal biomass is present year-round, suggesting a winter-active fungal community.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".