Resilience of mycorrhizal fungi on defoliated and fertilized hybrid poplars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of fertilization and gypsy moth defoliation of hybrid poplar (Populus ×canadensis Moench 'Eugenei') on ectomycorrhizal (ECM) and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal colonization, ECM richness, and ECM composition in the summers of 1997 and 1998. The factorial experiment included two levels of defoliation (defoliated and control) and fertilization (100 kg N·ha1and control). Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) populations were manipulated to obtain defoliation in the summer of 1996, 1997, and 1998; fertilization subplots were fertilized with NH4NO3(100 kg N·ha1) in the spring of these years. There were no significant effects of defoliation on ECM or AM colonization in either year; there was a significant (p ≤ 0.05) decline in AM colonization in fertilized plots in 1997 and a significant interaction between defoliation and fertilization effects on ECM colonization in 1997. In the nondefoliated plots, ECM fungal colonization increased, whereas AM colonization decreased because of fertilization. In the defoliated plots, neither ECM nor AM colonization was affected by fertilization. ECM community composition and richness were unchanged by any treatment. The small and transient effects of defoliation and fertilization on poplar AMs and ECMs demonstrate the tolerance of these early-successional trees to defoliation and their ability to rapidly use high levels of available nitrogen.Key words: Populus, nitrogen, ectomycorrhizas, arbuscular mycorrhizas, ectomycorrhizas, Lymantria dispar (gypsy moth), defoliation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".