Effects of host phylogeny, habitat and spatial proximity on host specificity and diversity of pathogenic and mycorrhizal fungi in a subtropical forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil plant-pathogenic (PF) and mycorrhizal fungi (MF) are both important in maintaining plant diversity, for example via host-specialized effects. However, empirical knowledge on the degree of host specificity and possible factors affecting the fungal assemblages is lacking. We identified PF and MF in fine roots of 519 individuals across 45 subtropical tree species in southern China in order to quantify the importance of host phylogeny (including via its effects on functional traits), habitat and space in determining fungal communities. We also compared host specificity in PF and MF at different host-phylogenetic scales. In both PF and MF, host phylogeny independently accounted for > 19% of the variation in fungal richness and composition, whereas environmental and spatial factors each explained no more than 4% of the variation. Over 77% of the variation explained by phylogeny was attributable to covariation in plant functional traits. Host specificity was phylogenetically scale-dependent, being stronger in PF than in MF at low host-phylogenetic scales (e.g. within genus) but similar at larger scales. Our study suggests that host-phylogenetic effects dominate the assembly of both PF and MF communities, resulting from phylogenetically clustered plant traits. The scale-dependent host specificity implies that PF were specialized at lower-level and MF at higher-level host taxa.
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".