Taxonomic basis for variation in the colonization strategy of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are important components of terrestrial communities but the basic ecology of individual AMF, including their colonization strategy, remains unclear. The colonizing behaviours of 21 AMF isolates from three families (Acaulosporaceae, Gigasporaceae and Glomaceae) were compared to test for a relationship between AMF taxonomy and colonization strategy. Both the rate and extent of colonization were considered by measuring percentage root colonization, root fungal biomass, soil hyphal length and soil fungal biomass over 12 wk. Most Glomaceae isolates colonized roots before Acaulosporaceae and Gigasporaceae isolates. The fastest colonizers were also often the most extensive. Taxonomic differences were apparent in the amount and proportion of fungal biomass found in roots vs in soil. Glomaceae isolates had high root colonization but low soil colonization, Gigasporaceae isolates showed the opposite trend whereas Acaulosporaceae isolates had low root and soil colonization. These results were similar for four different host plants. The results indicate that the colonizing strategies of AM fungi differ considerably and that this variation is taxonomically based at the family level. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal taxonomy therefore has a functional basis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".