Root-endophytic fungi cause morphological and functional differences in Scots pine roots in contrast to ectomycorrhizal fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endophytic fungi and ectomycorrhizal fungi co-exist in the mycorrhizal root tips of boreal forest trees. However, very little is known about the functional role they play in their host’s biology. The activity of enzymes responsible for important biochemical processes is used to determine the functional role of root-associated mycorrhizal fungi. However, enzyme activity is never studied in the presence of endophytic fungi in-planta. The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) root-isolated fungal endophytes on the host plant root morphology, to determine their functional effects using host root-excreted enzyme activity measurements, and to compare them with roots colonized by decomposer and ectomycorrhizal fungal strains and noncolonised Scots pine root tips. Our results show that endophytic fungi did not damage the pine roots in contrast to the decomposer fungi. The endophytic fungi penetrated the cortical cells of the host plant. The roots colonised by endophytic fungi produce different exo-enzymes compared with those produced by roots colonized by other fungal groups or noncolonized control root tips. Our results indicate that endophytic fungi are clearly a distinctive ecological group of fungi that have functional traits different from those of ectomycorrhizal and decomposer 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 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".