Bibliographic record
Abstract
The water relations of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) plants have been compared often. However, virtually nothing is known about the comparative water relations of AM and nonAM soils or about the relative influence of AM colonization of soil vs. AM colonization of plants on host water balance. In this review, I summarize findings that support the assertion that colonization of soil may play as important a role as colonization of roots regarding how AM symbiosis affects the water relations of host plants. We observed a slight but significant AM effect on the soil moisture characteristic curve of a Sequatchie fine sandy loam following 7 mo of mycorrhization by Glomus intraradices/Vigna unguiculata. In a separate study, few AM effects on either the wet or dry hysteretic curves were discernible after 12 mo of mycorrhization by G. intraradices or Gigaspora margarita on roots of Phaseolus vulgaris. Using myc- bean mutants, we determined that about half of the considerable promotion of stomatal conductance by G. intraradices and Gi. margarita was attributable to soil colonization and about half to plant colonization. A path analysis modeling approach revealed that soil hyphal colonization had larger direct and total effects on dehydration tolerance of bean than did root hyphal colonization or several other soil or plant variables. Key words: Mycorrhizal symbiosis, soil moisture characteristic, stomatal conductance, water relations
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".