Facilitation of Balsam Fir by Trembling Aspen in the Boreal Forest: Do Ectomycorrhizal Communities Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Succession is generally well described above-ground in the boreal forest, and several studies have demonstrated the role of interspecific facilitation in tree species establishment. However, the role of mycorrhizal communities for tree establishment and interspecific facilitation, has been little explored. At the ecotone between the mixed boreal forest, dominated by balsam fir and hardwood species, and the boreal forest, dominated by black spruce, several stands of trembling aspen can be found, surrounded by black spruce forest. Regeneration of balsam fir seems to have increased in the recent decades within the boreal forest, and it seems better adapted to grow in trembling aspen stands than in black spruce stands, even when located in similar abiotic conditions. As black spruce stands are also covered by ericaceous shrubs, we investigated if differences in soil fungal communities and ericaceous shrubs abundance could explain the differences observed in balsam fir growth and nutrition. We conducted a study centered on individual saplings to link growth and foliar nutrient concentrations to local vegetation cover, mycorrhization rate, and mycorrhizal communities associated with balsam fir roots. We found that foliar nutrient concentrations and ramification indices (colonization by mycorrhiza per length of root) were greater in trembling aspen stands and were positively correlated to apical and lateral growth of balsam fir saplings. In black spruce stands, the presence of ericaceous shrubs near balsam fir saplings affected ectomycorrhizal communities associated with tree roots which in turn negatively correlated with N foliar concentrations. Our results reveal that fungal communities observed under aspen are drivers of balsam fir early growth and nutrition in boreal forest stands and may facilitate ecotone migration in a context of climate change.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".