<i>Prototaxites</i> reinterpreted as mega-rhizomorphs, facilitating nutrient transport in early terrestrial ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enigmatic fossil Prototaxites found in successions ranging from the Middle Ordovician to the Upper Devonian was originally described as having conifer affinity. The current debate, however, suggests that they probably represent gigantic algal–fungal symbioses. Our re-investigation of permineralized Prototaxites specimens from two localities, the Heider quarry in Germany and the Bordeaux quarry in Canada, reveals striking anatomical similarities with modern fungal rhizomorphs Armillaria mellea. We analysed extant fungal rhizomorphs and fossil Prototaxites through light microscopy of their anatomy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray microscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Based on these comparisons, we interpret the Prototaxites as fungi. The detailed preservation of cell walls and possible organelles seen in transverse sections of Prototaxites reveal that fossilization initiated while the organism was alive, inhibiting the collapse of delicate cellular structures. Prototaxites has been interpreted to grow vertically by many previous workers. Here we propose an alternative view that Prototaxites represents a complex hyphal aggregation (rhizomorph) that may have grown horizontally similar to modern complex aggregated mycelial growth forms, such as cords and rhizomorphs. Their main function was possibly to redistribute water and nutrition from nutrient-rich to nutrient-poor areas facilitating the expansion for early land plant communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".