Within British Columbia forested ecosystems, is the local species richness of vascular plants associated with the local dominance of ectomycorrhizal hosts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forest ecosystems, the vast majority of plants in both the canopy and understory form symbioses with mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizal fungi form their symbioses by colonizing the plant’s roots either intracellularly, as is the case with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), or extracellularly as with ectomycorrhizal fungi (EMF). Mycorrhizal symbioses can range from being mutualistic to parasitic, influencing the plant’s carbon and nutrient cycling and pathogen defence. Recent research suggests that variations in the commonness and distribution of the different types of mycorrhizal symbioses (AMF versus EMF) can influence forest structure and functioning[1–4]. In particular, owing to their tendency to promote positive plant-soil feedbacks, EMF symbioses are hypothesized to reduce local plant diversity by favouring local recruitment of the same host species over recruitment of different host species[1,3,4]. This has been called the “EMF dominance hypothesis”[5]. An alternative “mycorrhizal dominance hypothesis” has also been proposed[5], in which increasing dominance of either type of association (AMF or EMF) decreases local plant diversity. This would occur if both types of symbioses favour con-specific recruitment over heterospecific recruitment. Tests of these hypotheses are uncommon and have focused almost exclusively on canopy trees[1,3,4], despite the vast majority of plant diversity in forests being in the understory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".