Postrestoration colonization suggests slow regeneration, plant translocation barriers, and other host/symbiont lessons during the United Nations' Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mycorrhizal restoration benefits are widely acknowledged, yet factors underpinning this success remain unclear. To illuminate when natural regeneration might be sufficient, we investigated the degree mycorrhizal fungi would colonize Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood) 2 years after the restoration of a riparian corridor, in the presence of an adjacent source. We compared colonization levels across plant populations and ecotypes, and from trees in the planted area to those in natural source populations. Four findings contribute to the theory and application of host–symbiont interactions. (1) Median ectomycorrhizal colonization of trees in the planted area was less than one‐tenth of that within natural source populations ( p < 0.05), suggesting that even with adjacent intact habitat, sluggish regeneration would make proactive mycorrhizal restoration beneficial. (2) Within the planted area, median ectomycorrhizal and arbuscule colonization of trees sourced from greater distances were less than one‐third of that for trees sourced locally ( p < 0.05), suggesting translocation poses barriers to symbioses. (3) Changes in colonization did not align with plant ecotypes, suggesting that geographic scales of selection for plants and fungi differ. (4) Slight increases in median mycorrhizal colonization (from 0% to 5%) were strongly correlated with increased survival for the plant provenance with lowest survival ( r 2 = 46% and r s = 48%, p < 0.05), suggesting mycorrhizae are particularly beneficial when plants are under stress (including translocation‐induced stress). This study is novel in demonstrating that mycorrhizal regeneration is slow even in the presence of adjacent intact habitat, and that when colonization could seem negligible, it may still have biological significance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".