Fungi from two forests of southern India: a comparative study of endophytes, phellophytes, and leaf litter fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The species diversity and distribution of 3 ecological groups of fungi (viz., foliar endophytes, phellophytes, and leaf litter fungi of 6 tree hosts of a dry thorn forest and 6 tree hosts of an evergreen forest of southern India) were studied. As the methods of sampling and the isolation procedure were maintained constant, the results could be compared across hosts and fungal assemblages. The diversity of endophytes was less in both forests, owing to host recurrence. The litter fungi showed a higher diversity in both forests when compared with endophytes or phellophytes. There was little overlap between the species assemblages of the 3 ecological groups of fungi. Hence, to be cost effective, diversity estimation exercises for fungi in the tropics should include different fungal substrates rather than one substrate (or ecological group); it appears that even small sample sizes of different substrates would provide an approximation that is the near-real species diversity, rather than using large sample sizes of any one particular indicator group of 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".