Ectomycorrhizas accelerate decomposition to a greater extent than arbuscular mycorrhizas in a northern deciduous forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It has been proposed that ectomycorrhizal (EcM) fungi slow down decomposition by competing with free-living saprotrophs for organic nutrients and other soil resources (known as the “Gadgil effect”), thereby increasing soil carbon sequestration. As such, this Gadgil effect should depend on soil organic matter age and quality, but this remains unstudied. In addition, the Gadgil effect is not expected to occur in arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) forests since AM fungi cannot access directly nutrients from soil organic matter, yet few direct comparisons between EcM and AM forests have been made. We performed a two-year reciprocal decomposition experiment of soil organic horizons (litter - L, fragmented - F, humic - H) in adjacent temperate deciduous forests dominated by EcM or AM trees. Litterbags were made of different mesh sizes allowing or excluding ingrowth of external fungal hyphae, which are primarily mycorrhizal in these forests other than for the most-recent superficial litter horizon. As expected, organic matter originating from deeper horizons and from EcM forests was of lower quality (e.g. higher lignin to nitrogen ratios) and decomposed more slowly. However, contrary to the Gadgil effect, organic matter exposed to external fungal hyphae (i.e. primarily mycorrhizal) actually decomposed faster in both forest types, and this effect was strongest in EcM forests, particularly in the F horizon. Unexpectedly, organic matter decomposition was faster in EcM than in AM forests, regardless of organic matter origin. Overall, our study reinforces the view that temperate EcM forests store greater amounts of soil organic carbon than AM forests, but suggests that this is due to factors other than the Gadgil effect.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".