Use of the Signature Fatty Acid 16:1<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="bold">ω</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>5 as a Tool to Determine the Distribution of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomass estimation of arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) fungi, widespread plant root symbionts, commonly employs lipid biomarkers, predominantly the fatty acid 16:1ω5. We briefly reviewed the application of this signature fatty acid, followed by a case study comparing biochemical markers with microscopic techniques in an arable soil following a change to AM non-host plants after 27 years of continuous host crops, that is, two successive cropping seasons with wheat followed by amaranth. After switching to the non-host amaranth, spore biomass estimated by the neutral lipid fatty acid (NLFA) 16:1ω5 decreased to almost nil, whereas microscopic spore counts decreased by about 50% only. In contrast, AM hyphal biomass assessed by the phospholipid (PLFA) 16:1ω5 was greater under amaranth than wheat. The application of PLFA 16:1ω5 as biomarker was hampered by background level derived from bacteria, and further enhanced by its incorporation from degrading spores used as microbial resource. Meanwhile, biochemical and morphological assessments showed negative correlation for spores and none for hyphal biomass. In conclusion, the NLFA 16:1ω5 appears to be a feasible indicator for AM fungi of the Glomales group in the complex field soils, whereas the use of PLFA 16:1ω5 for hyphae is unsuitable and should be restricted to controlled laboratory studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".