MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151803876 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2013-0185

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal succession in a long-lived perennial

2014· article· en· W2151803876 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Miranda M. Hart, Monika A. Gorzelak, Diane Ragone, Susan J. Murch

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEcological successionPerennial plantArbuscular mycorrhizalTaxonSymbiosisBotanyRhizophagus irregularisHost (biology)GlomeromycotaEcologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is difficult to understand why arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungal communities change over time. The role of host identity confounds our understanding of successional changes in AM fungal communities because hosts exert strong selective pressure on their root-associated microbes. In this study we looked at the AM fungi associated with a long-lived perennial breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg) to see how AM communities change over the life span of a single, long-lived host. Using 454 high-throughput sequencing, we found evidence that older trees had more AM fungal taxa than younger trees and were associated with different AM fungal communities, but these differences were not apparent early in the life cycle. Older trees were dominated by species of Rhizophagus, whereas younger trees and genets were dominated by species of Glomus. Some taxa were only detected in older trees (e.g., Funneliformis) or genets (e.g., Racocetra and Scutellospora), indicating that certain AM fungal taxa may serve as “indicators” of the successional age of the fungal community. These results provide important information about a poorly studied system and give insight into how AM communities change over longer time scales.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207