Hydraulic Properties of Sands Treated with Fungal Mycelium of <i>Trichoderma virens</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Filamentous fungi grow by extending and branching hyphae through soil pores, which creates an interconnected fibrous network known as mycelium. Fungal mycelium can cross-link and entangle soil particles, which reduces pore size and alters pore structures. Fungal mycelium also can secrete hydrophobic compounds, increasing the water repellency of soils. This study investigated the effect of fungal mycelium on the hydraulic properties of sands, including the soil-water retention curve (SWRC), soil water repellency, and hydraulic conductivity. Ottawa 20/30, 50/70, and 100/200 sands were treated with a filamentous, nonpathogenic, and saprotrophic fungus, Trichoderma virens (ATCC 9645). The results showed that fungal mycelia increased air entry suction by as much as 11.8 times, and increased water repellency at the sand surface from hydrophilic to extreme water repellency after 10 days of fungal growth. Hydraulic conductivities of fungal-treated sands decreased (by as much as 21 times at 20 days of fungal growth) with increasing fungal contents. The reduced hydraulic conductivities of fungal-treated sands can be maintained even under starvation condition (i.e., absence of nutrients). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images showed that fungal mycelia modified pore structures by cross-linking and entangling sand particles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".