Evolutionary history explains foliar spectral differences between arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal plant species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf spectra are integrated foliar phenotypes that capture a range of traits and can provide insight into ecological processes. Leaf traits, and therefore leaf spectra, may reflect belowground processes such as mycorrhizal associations. However, evidence for the relationship between leaf traits and mycorrhizal association is mixed, and few studies account for shared evolutionary history. We conduct partial least squares discriminant analysis to assess the ability of spectra to predict mycorrhizal type. We model the evolution of leaf spectra for 92 vascular plant species and use phylogenetic comparative methods to assess differences in spectral properties between arbuscular mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal plant species. Partial least squares discriminant analysis classified spectra by mycorrhizal type with 90% (arbuscular) and 85% (ectomycorrhizal) accuracy. Univariate models of principal components identified multiple spectral optima corresponding with mycorrhizal type due to the close relationship between mycorrhizal type and phylogeny. Importantly, we found that spectra of arbuscular mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal species do not statistically differ from each other after accounting for phylogeny. While mycorrhizal type can be predicted from spectra, enabling the use of spectra to identify belowground traits using remote sensing, this is due to evolutionary history and not because of fundamental differences in leaf spectra due to mycorrhizal type.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".