Above- and below-ground community structure of ectomycorrhizal fungi in three Norway spruce (<i>Picea abies</i>) stands in Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure of ectomycorrhizal communities was assessed above- and below-ground at three different sites in Switzerland that are dominated by Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). We applied three different approaches to record the ectomycorrhizal species compositions and their spatial structures and compared them among each other. Sporocarp inventories were carried out weekly for 3 years. Belowground, molecular, and morphological analyses of ectomycorrhizal roots were performed. In the 3 years of sporocarp survey, a total of 128 ectomycorrhizal species was observed. Most abundant in number of species were the genera Cortinarius and Russula in all three sites. Using polymerase chain reaction, only 22% of the ectomycorrhizal species observed in sporocarp surveys were detected in mycorrhizas. Species that produce no or inconspicuous sporocarps were most abundant on the root system in all three study sites. The resolution was clearly inferior in morphotype compared with molecular analyses. Spatial analyses of the ectomycorrhizal species composition among subplots revealed high variability within sites. Within sites, spatial structure with positive autocorrelation was observed based on sporocarp data as well as molecular analyses of root tips at the site where the number of analysed mycorrhizas was sufficiently high. No spatial structure could be detected on this scale by morphotype analyses because of the high variability among soil cores. All three methods showed the same site to be separated from the other two based on ectomycorrhizal species compositions. Stand ages and their histories are discussed as possible explanations for these findings.Key words: community structure, ectomycorrhiza, macrofungi, morphotype, ITS RFLP, Picea abies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".