Timing of fungal spore release dictates survival during atmospheric transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fungi disperse spores to move across landscapes and spore liberation takes different patterns. While many species release spores intermittently, others release spores at specific times of day or night according to intrinsic rhythms. Despite intriguing evidence of diurnal rhythms, why the timing of spore liberation would matter to a fungus remains an open question. Here we use state-of-the-art numerical simulations of atmospheric transport with meteorological data to follow the trajectory of many spores released in the open atmosphere at different times of day, during different seasons and at different locations across North America. While individual spores follow unpredictable trajectories due to turbulence, in the aggregate patterns emerge: statistically, spores released during the day fly for several days, while spores released at night return to the ground within a few hours. Differences are caused by intense turbulence during the day and weak turbulence at night. The pattern is widespread but its reliability varies, for example, day/night patterns are stronger in southern regions, where temperatures are warmer. Results provide a set of testable hypotheses explaining intermittent and regular patterns of spore release as strategies to maximize spore survival in the air. Species with short lived spores reproducing where there is strong and regular turbulence during the day, for example in Mexico, will maximize survival by routinely releasing spores at night. Where cycles are weak, for example in Canada during spring, there will be no benefit to releasing spores at the same time every day. We also challenge the perception of atmospheric dispersal as risky, wasteful, and beyond control of a sporocarp; our data suggest the timing of spore liberation may be finely tuned by a fungus to maximize fitness during atmospheric transport.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".