Codependency between plant and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities: what is the evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
That arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi covary with plant communities is clear, and many papers report nonrandom associations between symbiotic partners. However, these studies do not test the causal relationship, or 'codependency', whereby the composition of one guild affects the composition of the other. Here we outline underlying requirements for codependency, compare important drivers for both plant and AM fungal communities, and assess how host preference - a pre-requisite for codependency - changes across spatiotemporal scales and taxonomic resolution for both plants and AM fungi. We find few examples in the literature designed to test for codependency and those that do have been conducted within plots or mesocosms. Also, while plants and AM fungi respond similarly to coarse environmental filters, most variation remains unexplained, with host identity explaining less than 30% of the variation in AM fungal communities. These results combined question the likelihood of predictable co-occurrence, and therefore evolution of codependency, between plant and AM fungal taxa across locations. We argue that codependency is most likely to occur in homogeneous environments where specific plant - AM fungal pairings have functional consequences for the symbiosis. We end by outlining critical aspects to consider moving forward.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".