Species richness, abundance, and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarps in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir (<i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i>) in the Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of the community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi among successional forest age-classes is critical for conserving fungal species diversity. Hypogeous and epigeous sporocarps were collected from three replicate stands in each of three forest age-classes (young, rotation-age, and old-growth) of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) dominated stands with mesic plant association groups. Over four fall and three spring seasons, 48 hypogeous and 215 epigeous species or species groups were collected from sample areas of 6300 and 43 700 m 2 , respectively. Cumulative richness of hypogeous and epigeous species was similar among age-classes but differed between seasons. Thirty-six percent of the species were unique to an age-class: 50 species to old-growth, 19 to rotation-age, and 25 to young stands. Seventeen species (eight hypogeous and nine epigeous) accounted for 79% of the total sporocarp biomass; two hypogeous species, Gautieria monticola Harkn., and Hysterangium crassirhachis Zeller and Dodge, accounted for 41%. Average sporocarp biomass in young and rotation-age stands compared with old-growth stands was about three times greater for hypogeous sporocarps and six times greater for epigeous sporocarps. Average hypogeous sporocarp biomass was about 2.4 times greater in spring compared with fall and for epigeous sporocarps about 146 times greater in fall compared with spring. Results demonstrated differences in ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarp abundance and species composition among successional forest age-classes.Key words: ectomycorrhizal fungi, sporocarp production, forest succession, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Tsuga heterophylla zone, biodiversity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".