The interplay of biotic and abiotic factors shapes tree root endophyte communities and seedling growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Root endophytic microbes can alleviate plant abiotic stresses, thus potentially supporting adaptation to a changing climate during plant range shifts. While climate change is extending plant fundamental niches northward, the distribution and colonization of mutualists (e.g., arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) and pathogens may constrain plant growth and regeneration. Yet, the degree to which biotic and abiotic factors impact plant performance and associated microbial communities at the edge of their distribution remains unclear. Here, we used root microscopy analysis, coupled with short marker sequencing, to study bacterial, fungal, and mycorrhizal root endophytic communities from sugar maple seedlings distributed across two temperate-to-boreal elevational gradients in southern Québec, Canada. Our findings demonstrate that soil pH, soil Ca, and distance to sugar maple trees are key drivers of root endophyte microbial communities, overshadowing the influence of elevation. Interestingly, changes in root fungal community composition mediated an indirect effect of soil pH on seedling growth, a pattern consistent at both sites. Overall, our findings highlight a complex role of biotic and abiotic factors in shaping tree-microbe interactions, which are in turn impacting seedling growth. These findings have important implications for tree range expansion in response to shifting climatic conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".