Ectomycorrhizal fungal hyphae communities vary more along a pH and nitrogen gradient than between decayed wood and mineral soil microsites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal community composition is structured by soil properties, but specialization for woody microsites by ECM fungi is equivocal. Because fungal mycelia explore the substrate and colonize nutrient patches, studies targeting ECM fungal hyphae may reveal niche preferences. Moreover, studying the distribution and composition of ECM fungal hyphal communities contributes to our understanding of nutrient cycling in forest soils. We used next-generation sequencing to determine whether the composition of forest floor fungal communities present as hyphae differed among three microsite types: decayed wood, mineral soil adjacent to intact logs, or control mineral soil of mature spruce forests in British Columbia. The microsites were located in three blocks that were separated by 1 km and varied in elevation. Across the site, the ECM fungal lineage /amphinema–tylospora was the most operational taxonomic unit (OTU)-rich group, while the saprotrophic order Mortierellales was also dominant. ECM fungal species differed among microsites. For example, ECM fungal OTUs identified as Tylospora fibrillosa and Russula curtipes were more frequent in decayed wood as compared with control mineral soil. However, ECM fungal communities were more strongly structured by block characteristics, and we conclude there is no distinct group of ECM fungi specializing in the soil microsites examined in this forest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".