Effect of mycorrhizae on aboveground biomass in monodominant Gilbertiodendron dewevrei and mixed species forests in a tropical rainforests of the Congo Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms underlying the relationship between aboveground biomass and mycorrhizal intensity are poorly documented in tropical forests. This study assesses the influence of mycorrhizae on aboveground biomass (AGB) in two adjacent mixed species forests stands and monodominant Gilbertiodendron dewevrei stands in the Dja Biosphere Reserve. The methodology used included inventories of trees ≥ 10 cm in diameter, sampling of rootlets with diameter < 2 mm from the collar to the most branched level in one ha permanent plots and assessment of mycorrhizal structures in one cm rootlets at a rate of 30 rootlets/tree. The study observed 26 100 rootlets originating from 290 trees belonging to 115 species, 96 genera and 35 families in themixed species stands while 5490 rootlets were observed in the monodominant G. dewevrei stands comprising 61 trees, 34 species, 29 genera and 18 families. Within the mixed species stands, 77.39% of the species are associated with endomycorrhizae while only 22.61% of the species did not form mychorrhizae association. For the G. dewevrei stands 70.59% formed endomycorrhizae while 26.47% of species have no mychorrhizae. Ectomycorrhiza was recorded for only 2.94% of the species in the G. dewevrei stands. Variation in tree diameter did not dependent on mycorrhizal intensity. Wilcoxon test showed that the AGB in the mixed forests is statistically lower than that in the monodominant forest (p-value =0.03). G. dewevrei stands should be considered separately from mixed species stands when calculating AGB. A better understanding of mycorrhizae symbiosis will clarify their contributions to tropical forest functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 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".