Interspecific differences in root foraging precision cannot be directly inferred from species' mycorrhizal status or fine root economics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".