The assembly of plant communities in relation to overlap in mycorrhizal and pathogenic root fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Plant species commonly associate with symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) and pathogenic root fungi, with many plants overlapping in their fungal community compositions. Overlap in AM fungi could promote coexistence by favouring competitively inferior or rare plants, or through the establishment of common mycorrhizal networks. Coexistence could also, however, be impeded if shared AM fungi disproportionately benefit competitively superior or abundant plant species. Overlap in pathogenic root fungi among closely growing plant species should increase the likelihood that an uninfected plant becomes infected, leading to reduced coexistence. Using vegetation plot data from an old‐field plant community along with high‐throughput sequence data on AM and pathogenic root fungal associations, we conducted three specific evaluations. First, we used null models to determine whether estimated overlap in AM or pathogenic root fungi among coexisting plant species was higher or lower than expected by chance. Second, we assessed whether estimated overlap in AM and pathogenic fungi differed between positively co‐occurring and negatively co‐occurring plant species. Third, we examined whether variation in plot‐level plant species richness was explained by the degree of estimated overlap in AM and pathogenic root fungi among those species. We found no evidence that estimated overlap in AM or pathogenic root fungal communities was higher or lower than expected under our null model. Additionally, positively and negatively co‐occurring pairs of plant species did not differ in their estimated overlap in either group of fungi. However, plant species richness was significantly higher in plots where plants were estimated to overlap more in AM fungi and significantly lower in plots where plant species were estimated to overlap more in pathogenic root fungi. Our results suggest that overlap in root fungal associations among plant species appears to be predictive of plant species richness, and therefore the assembly of plant communities. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".