Differences in Soil Fungal Communities between Forested Reclamation and Forestry Sites in the Alberta Oil Sands Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi play key roles in forest soils and provide benefits to trees via mycorrhizal symbioses. After severe disturbance, forest regrowth can be impeded because of changes in fungal communities. In 2013-2014, soil fungi in forest floor and mineral soil were examined by Roche 454 pyrosequencing in undisturbed, harvested, and burned jack pine stands in a forested area near Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. These fungal communities were compared with jack pine, white spruce, and larch stands in Gateway Hill, a nearby certified reclaimed area. In 2014, a more detailed sampling of forestry and reclamation jack pine sites examined fungi in soil fractions using two high-throughput sequencing platforms and a sporocarp survey. The significances of compositional and functional differences in fungal communities between the forested and reclamation sites were assessed using permutation tests of partially constrained ordinations, accounting for confounding factors by variance partitioning. Taxa associated with the forestry area were primarily ectomycorrhizal. Fungal richness and diversity were greater in soils from the reclamation sites and included significantly more pathogenic taxa and taxa with unknown functional properties. Fungal community dissimilarities may have been artefacts of historical legacies or, alternatively, may have resulted from contrasting niche differentiation between forestry and reclamation sites.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".