Distinct foliar fungal communities in Pinus contorta across native and introduced ranges: evidence for context dependency of pathogen release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inter-continental study systems are crucial for testing ecological hypotheses, such as the widely cited Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH), which seeks to explain the superior performance of plant species when they are introduced to new regions. Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine), native to North America, has been extensively introduced to Europe and the Southern Hemisphere, making it an ideal tree species for studying invasion hypotheses from a biogeographical perspective. We compared foliar fungal communities, especially pathogens, of P. contorta across two native-introduced region pairs (NIRPs): a northern NIRP (from Canada to Sweden) and a southern NIRP (from the USA to Patagonia), while also examining the differences between source plantations and invasion fronts within Patagonia. P. contorta underwent significant fungal community shifts and experienced pathogen release during its large-scale introduction from North America to Sweden and Patagonia. The fungal richness and relative abundance changes were more pronounced for the southern NIRP pair, where no closely related tree species to P. contorta are present in Patagonia. In Sweden, the presence of the phylogenetically related P. sylvestris and its associated local fungal community appears to play a role in influencing the foliar fungal communities associated with introduced P. contorta. In Patagonia, the incomplete co-invasion of fungal taxa from the USA emerges as a principal driver of the observed variability in fungal community composition and pathogen release following the introduction of P. contorta. In Patagonia, fungal community composition differences between source plantations and invasion fronts provided insufficient evidence that pathogen release occurs at this local scale. Integrating both biogeographical and phylogenetic perspectives, our study suggests that priority effects of local fungi appear to be a dominant community assembly process when introduction is done in a phylogenetically similar community; whereas, co-invasion of fungal communities is the dominant process in phylogenetically distant communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".