The effect of refuge trees on a paper birch ectomycorrhiza community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Live trees within forest disturbances could support refugia populations of ectomycorrhizae fungi from which to reestablish ectomycorrhiza communities during forest succession. The effectiveness of refuge paper birch trees (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) in maintaining a forest ectomycorrhiza community on birch seedlings, both in clearcuts and forests, in northwest British Columbia was examined. Seedlings next to refuge birch trees in clearcuts had equal levels of average morphotype richness and eveness as seedlings next to mature birch trees in forests. Seedlings outside of the rooting zone of refuge trees had significantly less average morphotype richness in both clearcuts and forests, decreasing by 38 and 15%, respectively. The ectomycorrhiza communities were also more unique (lower community similarity) next to refuge trees than for seedlings away from refuge trees, especially in clearcuts. These treatment effects could be explained by differences in the ability to disperse and establish between early-stage, multi-stage, and late-stage ectomycorrhiza fungi. The results suggest refuge trees would be effective in forest management as sources of inocula for multi-stage and late-stage fungi.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".