MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carbon and nitrogen supply to the underground orchid, <i>Rhizanthella gardneri</i>

2010· article· en· W2109127035 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Bougoure, Mark Brundrett, Pauline F. Grierson

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrogenCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceEcologyBotanyBiologyChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

*Rhizanthella gardneri is a rare and fully subterranean orchid that is presumably obligately mycoheterotrophic. R. gardneri is thought to be linked via a common mycorrhizal fungus to co-occurring autotrophic shrubs, but there is no experimental evidence to support this supposition. *We used compartmentalized microcosms to investigate the R. gardneri tripartite relationship. (13)CO(2) was applied to foliage of Melaleuca scalena plants and [(13)C-(15)N]glycine was fed to the common mycorrhizal fungus, and both sources traced to R. gardneri plants. *In our microcosm trial, up to 5% of carbon (C) fed as (13)CO(2) to the autotrophic shrub was transferred to R. gardneri. R. gardneri also readily acquired soil C and nitrogen (N), where up to 6.2% of C and 22.5% of N fed as labelled glycine to soil was transferred via the fungus to R. gardneri after 240 h. *Our study confirms that R. gardneri is mycoheterotrophic and acquires nutrients via mycorrhizal fungus connections from an ectomycorrhizal autotrophic shrub and directly from the soil via the same fungus. This connection with a specific fungus is key to explaining why R. gardneri occurs exclusively under certain Melaleuca species at a very limited number of sites in Western Australia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207