Above and Below Ground Fungal Diversity in a Hemlock-dominated Forest Plot in Southern Ontario and the Phylogenetic Placement of a New Ascomycota Subphylum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this thesis was to assess the diversity and community structure of fungi in a forest plot in Ontario using a variety of field sampling and analytical methods. Three broad questions were addressed: 1) How do different measures affect the resulting view of fungal diversity? 2) Do fruiting bodies and soil rDNA sampling detect the same phylogenetic and ecological groups of Agaricomycotina? 3) Will additional rDNA sampling resolve the phylogenetic position of unclassified fungal sequences recovered from environmental sampling? Generally, richness, abundance, and phylogenetic diversity (PD) correspond and identify the same dominant fungal groups in the study site, although in different proportions. Clades with longer branch lengths tend to comprise a larger proportion of diversity when assessed using PD. Three phylogenetic-based comparisons were found to be variable in their ability to detect significant differences. Generally, the Unifrac significance measure (Lozupone et al., 2006) is the most conservative, followed by the P-test (Martin, 2002), and Libshuff library comparison (Singleton et al., 2001) with our dataset. Fruiting body collections and rDNA sampling recover largely different assemblages of fungi at the species level; however, both methods identify the same taxonomic groups at the genus-order level as well as ectomycorrhizal fungi as the dominant functional type of Agaricomycotina. This work also shows that the Soil Clone Group I (SCGI) clade is widespread in soils of diverse origins and represents a novel subphylum of Ascomycota.
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".