MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286931618 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2015-0226

Arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation in coastal sage scrub restoration

2016· article· en· W2286931618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amanda M. Aprahamian, Megan E. Lulow, Matthew R. Major, Kathleen R. Balazs, Kathleen K. Treseder, Mia R. Maltz

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNature Conservancy
KeywordsBiologySeedlingColonizationInoculationShootForbBiomass (ecology)ShrublandBotanyColonisationArbuscular mycorrhizal fungiArbuscular mycorrhizalAgronomyHorticultureSymbiosisGrasslandEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypothesis that field applications of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) inocula would increase root colonization and plant performance in a coastal sage scrub (CSS) restoration project in Southern California. We applied commercial or native inocula (from nearby reference shrublands) as we seeded plots with native shrubs, forbs, and grasses. A control treatment was seeded but received no inocula. After 6 months, AM root colonization did not differ significantly among treatments. Likewise, neither inoculum type significantly altered shoot biomass of native shrubs and forbs at 6 months, or density of adult and seedling shrubs at 10 months. Notably, shoot height at 10 months was shorter in plots treated with commercial inoculum compared with the controls. In addition, flower and flower bud production by Salvia columbariae did not significantly respond to either inoculum type. Altogether, we found no evidence that AM inoculation improved restoration success in our CSS system.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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