Effects of clearcut logging and tree species composition on the diversity and community composition of epigeous fruit bodies formed by ectomycorrhizal fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the effects of stand age and tree species composition on the abundance, diversity, and community composition of epigeous fruit bodies formed by ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi in the Interior Cedar Hemlock zone of British Columbia. Fruit bodies were collected and identified in May, June, August, September, and October of 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 from transects located in new (5 year old) plantations and mature (75–125 year old) wild forests composed of relatively pure Betula papyrifera Marsh. (paper birch), relatively pure Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco (interior Douglas-fir), and mixtures of the two tree species. A total of 187 fungal taxa were collected during the study, of which 185 occurred in mature forests and only 17 occurred in the plantations. Thirty-four taxa were unique to mature predominantly birch forests, 35 were unique to mature predominantly Douglas-fir forests, 17 were unique to mixed mature forests, and 68 taxa were found in all three mature forest types. The abundance of fruit bodies in mature forests varied widely among sampling years and generally increased with annual precipitation. ECM species richness differed between stand ages but not among forest compositions in both plantations and mature forests. Lactarius glyciosmus , Hygrophorus eburneus var. eburneus , and Cortinarius armillatus were more abundant in mature birch than mature Douglas-fir forests. Lactarius torminosus , Leccinum scabrum var. scabrum , and Rozites caperatus were also found predominantly in mature birch and mixed forests, whereas Gomphidius subroseus was more abundant in Douglas-fir forests than in birch and mixed mature forests. Russula brevipes was also found predominantly in mature Douglas-fir and mixed forests. Our results indicate that clearcutting has a profound effect on abundance and composition of ECM fruit bodies, and that changes in forest tree species composition may lead to shifts in ECM fungal community composition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".