MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial and temporal ecology of Scots pine ectomycorrhizas

2010· article· en· W2118123345 on OpenAlexaff
Brian J. Pickles, David R. Genney, Jacqueline M. Potts, Jack J. Lennon, Ian C. Anderson, Ian J. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsScots pineEcologyBiologySpatial ecologyPinus <genus>Botany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial analysis was used to explore the distribution of individual species in an ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal community to address: whether mycorrhizas of individual ECM fungal species were patchily distributed, and at what scale; and what the causes of this patchiness might be. Ectomycorrhizas were extracted from spatially explicit samples of the surface organic horizons of a pine plantation. The number of mycorrhizas of each ECM fungal species was recorded using morphotyping combined with internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequencing. Semivariograms, kriging and cluster analyses were used to determine both the extent and scale of spatial autocorrelation in species abundances, potential interactions between species, and change over time. The mycorrhizas of some, but not all, ECM fungal species were patchily distributed and the size of patches differed between species. The relative abundance of individual ECM fungal species and the position of patches of ectomycorrhizas changed between years. Spatial and temporal analysis revealed a dynamic ECM fungal community with many interspecific interactions taking place, despite the homogeneity of the host community. The spatial pattern of mycorrhizas was influenced by the underlying distribution of fine roots, but local root density was in turn influenced by the presence of specific fungal species.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0060.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations143
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207