Evolutionary asymmetry in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: conservatism in fungal morphology does not predict host plant growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi are obligate symbionts that can influence plant growth, the magnitude and direction of these effects are highly variable within fungal genera and even among isolates within species, as well as among plant taxa. To determine whether variability in AM fungal morphology and growth is correlated with AM fungal effects on plant growth, we established a common garden experiment with 56 AM fungal isolates comprising 17 genera and six families growing with three plant host species. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal morphology and growth was highly conserved among isolates of the same species and among species within a family. By contrast, plant growth response to fungal inoculation was highly variable, with the majority of variation occurring among different isolates of the same AM fungal species. Our findings show that host performance cannot be predicted from AM fungal morphology and growth traits. Divergent effects on plant growth among isolates within an AM fungal species may be caused by coevolution between co-occurring fungal and plant populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".