Estimation of Fungal Diversity and Identification of Major Abiotic Drivers Influencing Fungal Richness and Communities in Northern Temperate and Boreal Quebec Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi play important roles in forest ecosystems and understanding fungal diversity is crucial to address essential questions about species conservation and ecosystems management. Changes in fungal diversity can have severe impacts on ecosystem functionality. Unfortunately, little is known about fungal diversity in northern temperate and boreal forests, and we have yet to understand how abiotic variables shape fungal richness and composition. Our objectives were to make an overview of the fungal richness and the community composition in the region and identify their major abiotic drivers. We sampled 262 stands across the northern temperate and boreal Quebec forest located in the region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Mauricie, and Haute-Mauricie. At each site, we characterized fungal composition using Illumina sequencing, as well as several potential abiotic drivers (e.g., humus thickness, soil pH, vegetation cover, etc.). We tested effects of abiotic drivers on species richness using generalized linear models, while difference in fungal composition between stands was analyzed with permutational multivariate analysis of variance and beta-diversity partitioning analyses. Fungi from the order Agaricales, Helotiales, and Russulales were the most frequent and sites from the north of Abitibi-Témiscamingue showed the highest OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Unit) richness. Stand age and moss cover were the best predictors of fungal richness. On the other hand, the strongest drivers of fungal community structure were soil pH, average cumulative precipitation, and stand age, although much of community variance was left unexplained in our models. Overall, our regional metacommunity was characterized by high turnover rate, even when rare OTUs were removed. This may indicate strong environmental filtering by several unmeasured abiotic filters, or stronger than expected dispersal limitations in soil fungal communities. Our results show how difficult it can be to predict fungal community assembly even with high replication and efforts to include several biologically relevant explanatory variables.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".