Saprotrophic and ectomycorrhizal fungal sporocarp stoichiometry (C : N : P) across temperate rainforests as evidence of shared nutrient constraints among symbionts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying nutritional dynamics of free-living saprotrophs and symbiotic ectomycorrhizal fungi in the field is challenging, but the stoichiometry of fruiting bodies (sporocarps) may be an effective methodology for this purpose. Carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations of soils, foliage and 146 sporocarp collections were analyzed from 14 Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii stands across a podzolization gradient on Vancouver Island (Canada). N and P concentrations were considerably higher in saprotrophic fungi. Fungal N% increased with soil N content at a greater rate for saprotrophs than ectomycorrhizal fungi, while fungal P% of saprotrophs was more constrained. Fungal N : P was more responsive to soil N : P for ectomycorrhizal fungi (homeostatic regulation coefficient 'H' = 2.9) than saprotrophs (H = 5.9), while N : P of ectomycorrhizal fungi and host tree foliage scaled almost identically. Results underscore the role of ectomycorrhizal fungi as nutrient conduits, supporting host trees, whereas saprotrophs maintain a greater degree of nutritional homeostasis. Site nutrient constraints were shared in equal measure between ectomycorrhizal fungi and host trees, particularly for P, suggesting neither partner benefits from enhanced nutrition at the expense of the other. Sporocarp stoichiometry provides new insights into mycorrhizal relationships and illustrates pervasive P deficiencies across temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".