Does responsiveness to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi depend on plant invasive status?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in the direction and degree to which invasive alien and native plants are influenced by mycorrhizal associations could indicate a general mechanism of plant invasion, but whether or not such differences exist is unclear. Here, we tested whether mycorrhizal responsiveness varies by plant invasive status while controlling for phylogenetic relatedness among plants with two large grassland datasets. Mycorrhizal responsiveness was measured for 68 taxa from the Northern Plains, and data for 95 taxa from the Central Plains were included. Nineteen percent of taxa from the Northern Plains had greater total biomass with mycorrhizas while 61% of taxa from the Central Plains responded positively. For the Northern Plains taxa, measurable effects often depended on the response variable (i.e., total biomass, shoot biomass, and root mass ratio) suggesting varied resource allocation strategies when roots are colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. In both datasets, invasive status was nonrandomly distributed on the phylogeny. Invasive taxa were mainly from two clades, that is, Poaceae and Asteraceae families. In contrast, mycorrhizal responsiveness was randomly distributed over the phylogeny for taxa from the Northern Plains, but nonrandomly distributed for taxa from the Central Plains. After controlling for phylogenetic similarity, we found no evidence that invasive taxa responded differently to mycorrhizas than other taxa. Although it is possible that mycorrhizal responsiveness contributes to invasiveness in particular species, we find no evidence that invasiveness in general is associated with the degree of mycorrhizal responsiveness. However, mycorrhizal responsiveness among species grown under common conditions was highly variable, and more work is needed to determine the causes of this variation.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".