Near‐to‐nature logging influences fungal community assembly processes in a temperate forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary As the E arth's biota enters the sixth great mass extinction event recorded in the history of the planet, it is predicted that the erosion of biodiversity will result in the reduction of the goods and services that ecosystems provide. To mediate the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function associated with wood production in temperate forests in E urope, a near‐to‐nature strategy has been developed. Whether this strategy enables natural assembly mechanisms of fungi responsible for major ecosystem processes is unknown. We analysed variation in species richness and both the functional and phylogenetic structure of fungal assemblages of different trophic life histories (soil saprotrophic, wood saprotrophic, and ectomycorrhizal fungi) in 69 beech forest plots along a steep gradient of management intensity. We focused on reproductive traits to test the hypothesis that management intensity shifts community assembly mechanisms from limitations in niche overlap that promote the coexistence of dissimilar species to environmental filtering that selects for similar species. Specifically, we hypothesized that unpredictable resources in production forests filter the assemblages, promoting species with small fruit bodies and with small and elongated spores. As management intensity increased, functional diversity decreased from a random pattern to a clustered pattern, which indicated that management intensity increased the strength of environmental filtering. However, phylogenetic diversity increased from a random pattern to an overdispersed pattern. Combining phylogenetic diversity with functional diversity did not provide additional insight into the traits but revealed a contrasting pattern. Reproduction traits of the assemblages shifted, with a decrease in mean fruit body size and an increase in spore elongation. Synthesis and applications . Near‐to‐nature logging concepts are not able to mimic the major processes that shape fungal community assembly in protected forests. This could have severe consequences for important ecosystem functions provided by fungi. The phylogenetic overdispersion indicated that analyses of other traits in addition to reproductive traits are required to disentangle the factors affecting fungal community structure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".