Relative abundance of ectomycorrhizas in a managed loblolly pine (<i>Pinus taeda</i>) genetics plantation as determined through terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the relationship between relative abundance of ectomycorrhizas in soil cores determined using morphotype tip counts and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) analysis. Root tips were harvested from a total of 120 soil cores collected from six family plots in a loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) genetics plantation. Tips from each soil core were morphotyped based on physical characteristics, identified through TRFLP and sequence analysis, then pooled to reconstruct the ectomycorrhizal community within that core. The identity and relative abundance of specific ectomycorrhizas in each reconstructed community was then determined using TRFLP analysis of the internal transcribed spacer of the rRNA gene. Using TRFLP, we were able to detect 34 ectomycorrhizal phylotypes colonizing roots of loblolly pine. TRFLP peak area was an accurate approximation of the relative number of tips of each ectomycorrhizal type within a soil core. Relative abundance of each ectomycorrhiza as determined by TRFLP was used to describe their distribution in the pine plantation. Although there were no differences found in ectomycorrhizal richness and evenness among the six family plots, the two fertilized plots had generally lower levels of ectomycorrhizal richness and evenness as indicated by rank abundance curves. Our results suggest that TRFLP is a useful tool for describing the occurrence and distribution of ectomycorrhizas in environmental samples.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".