Tree diversity is not always a strong driver of soil microbial diversity: a 7‐yr‐old diversity experiment with trees
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Trees provide organic substrates in the form of root exudates, litterfall, and fine root turnover. They modify soil physical properties and support soil biological activities. Therefore, trees are hypothesized to control soil biodiversity in forested areas. We predicted that (1) experimental forest plantations with higher tree alpha‐diversity have greater soil microbial alpha‐diversity and (2) that plantations with more divergent tree community composition would have more divergent soil microbial assemblages (Whitaker's beta‐diversity). We tested these predictions by measuring soil bacteria and fungi in a 7‐yr‐old tree biodiversity experiment. The experimental plantation contained 37 different tree assemblages, which were composed of one to four native species from temperate mixed deciduous forests. Further, there was a gradient of functional diversity nested within each level of species diversity. Soil samples were assessed for bacteria and fungi by amplicon sequencing. Tree alpha‐diversity weakly, but significantly, affected bacterial alpha‐diversity, without affecting fungal alpha‐diversity. Tree community composition was weakly, but significantly, linked to soil bacterial and fungal assemblages. In these 7‐yr‐old experimental plantations, tree diversity was not the most influential driver of soil microbial diversity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it