Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are ubiquitous in agricultural soils. These fungi play important roles in plant nutrition and soil conservation. The persistence of AM fungi in ecosystems depends on the formation and survival of propagules (e.g., spore, hyphae and colonized roots). While spores are considered to be resistant structure that may be view as “long-term” propagules when viable host plants are not present, hyphae are considered to be the main source of inocula when host plants are present and the soil is not disturbed. Tillage is an integral part of modern agriculture that can modify the physical, chemical and biological properties of a soil. Consequently, tillage practices may also affect AM fungi. The various tillage practices used in the management of soil for maximum crop production may negatively impact the survival of AM fungal propagules. In tilled soil, certain AM species may survive while others may disappear. Because AM fungi are more abundant in the topsoil, deep plowing may dilute their propagules in a greater volume of soil, thereby reducing the level of infection of a plant root. Tillage is particularly detrimental to AM hyphae if the soil is tilled in the fall and the hyphae are detached from the host plant. Under no-till (NT), AM fungi survive better, particularly when they are close to the host crop on which they developed. There is speculation that in NT systems, plants may follow old root channels and potentially encounter more AM fungal propagules than plants growing in soil that has been tilled. Management of AM fungi in NT soil is essential to maximizing benefits to crops. This review reports how tillage practices affect AM fungi species richness, survivability and infectivity, and how conservation tillage can increase AM fungi survival, consequently improving plant phosphorus uptake and soil aggregate stability. Key words: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, conservation tillage, conventional tillage, P uptake, soil aggregate stability, cover crops, crop yield
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".