Community assembly and network structure of epiphytic and endophytic phyllosphere fungi in a subtropical mangrove ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microorganisms can influence plant growth and health, ecosystem functioning, and stability. Community and network structures of mangrove phyllosphere fungi have rarely been studied although mangroves have very important ecological and economical values. Here, we used high throughput sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) to assess epiphytic and endophytic phyllosphere fungal communities of six true mangrove species and five mangrove associates. Totally, we obtained 1,391 fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs), including 596 specific epiphytic fungi, 600 specific endophytic fungi, and 195 shared fungi. The richness and community composition differed significantly for epiphytes and endophytes. Phylogeny of the host plant had a significant constraint on epiphytes but not endophytes. Network analyses showed that plant-epiphyte and plant-endophyte networks exhibited strong specialization and modularity but low connectance and anti-nestedness. Compared to plant-endophyte network, plant-epiphyte network showed stronger specialization, modularity, and robustness but lower connectance and anti-nestedness. These differences in community and network structures of epiphytes and endophytes may be caused by spatial niche partitioning, indicating their underlying ecological and environmental drivers are inconsistent. We highlight the important role of plant phylogeny in the assembly of epiphytic but not endophytic fungal communities in mangrove ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".