Niche modelling predicts that soil fungi occupy a precarious climate in boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Efforts to predict the responses of soil fungal communities to climate change are hindered by limited information on how fungal niches are distributed across environmental hyperspace. We predict the climate sensitivity of North American soil fungal assemblage composition by modelling the ecological niches of several thousand fungal species. Location One hundred and thirteen sites in the United States and Canada spanning all biomes except tropical rain forest. Major Taxa Studied Fungi. Time Period 2011–2018. Methods We combine internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences from two continental‐scale sampling networks in North America and cluster them into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 97% similarity. Using climate and soil data, we fit ecological niche models (ENMs) based on logistic ridge regression for all OTUs present in at least 10 sites (n = 8597). To describe the compositional turnover of soil fungal assemblages over climatic gradients, we introduce a novel niche‐based metric of climate sensitivity, the Sørensen climate sensitivity index. Finally, we map climate sensitivity across North America. Results ENMs have a mean out‐of‐sample predictive accuracy of 73.8%, with temperature variables being strong predictors of fungal distributions. Soil fungal climate niches clump together across environmental space, which suggests common physiological limits and predicts abrupt changes in composition with respect to changes in climate. Soil fungi in North American climates are more likely to be limited by cold and dry conditions than by warm and wet conditions, and ectomycorrhizal fungi generally tolerate colder temperatures than saprotrophic fungi. Sørensen climate sensitivity exhibits a multimodal distribution across environmental space, with a peak in climates corresponding to boreal forests. Main Conclusions The boreal forest occupies an especially precarious region of environmental space for the composition of soil fungal assemblages in North America, as even small degrees of warming could trigger large compositional changes characterized mainly by an influx of warm‐adapted species.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".