MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224246232 · doi:10.1111/oik.08995

Interspecific differences in root foraging precision cannot be directly inferred from species' mycorrhizal status or fine root economics

2022· article· en· W4224246232 on OpenAlexaff
Pavlína Stiblíková, Adam Klimeš, James F. Cahill, Tomáš Koubek, Martin Weiser

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingBiologyHerbaceous plantNutrientSymbiosisBiomass (ecology)Interspecific competitionAgronomyForageBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrient acquisition in plants can be represented by a suite of intercorrelated root traits such as root diameter, nitrogen content, root tissue density and specific root length. However, it is unclear how a plant's ability to precisely forage for nutrients in a heterogeneous soil environment (i.e. the precision of placing roots into nutrient‐rich areas) relates to these traits. Mycorrhizal symbiosis also affects the relationship between the fine root traits and root foraging precision because fungal hyphae may be used for foraging instead of roots. Hypotheses matching high root foraging precision with low mycorrhizal colonization or ‘fast' acquisitive strategies of plants have been raised based either on data from tree species or a limited number of herbaceous species. To test these hypotheses, we compiled data quantifying the experimentally measured degree to which root biomass responded to patchy substrate nutrient concentrations (i.e. root foraging precision) for 123 herbaceous grassland species using a partial meta‐analysis. We tested root foraging precision relationship with root traits involved in nutrient acquisition and mycorrhizal symbiosis (root diameter, specific root length, root tissue density, root tissue nitrogen content and mycorrhizal colonization). The root foraging precision data came from four different pot experiments, and the trait data were extracted from publicly available trait databases. We used a phylogenetically informed approach in order to detect the degree of conservation of the relationships. We found that root foraging precision was not significantly correlated with other fine root traits and mycorrhizal colonization. Thus, it appears unrelated to the main dimensions of the nutrient acquisition space of herbaceous species, namely acquisitive–conservative strategy and outsourcing of acquisition to the fungi. Also, we found only a very weak phylogenetic signal in root foraging precision of 123 species. Our results suggest that root foraging precision constitutes another distinct, evolutionarily independent dimension in herbaceous species' trait space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207