Allelopathic effects of Epichloë fungal endophytes: experiment and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host-specific Epichloë spp. are endophytic fungal symbionts of pooid grasses that produce herbivore-deterring alkaloids and alter the grass host’s metabolite and protein profiles. Early observations suggested that Epichloë may have negative allelopathic effects on neighbouring plant species, particularly Trifolium spp. clovers, but subsequent allelopathy tests produced variable results. We examined two hypotheses: (1) Epichloë allelopathy negatively affects other plant species, and (2) Epichloë strains differ in their allelopathic effect. We performed a greenhouse experiment using root exudates from Lolium perenne hosting different E. festucae var. lolii strains to compare their allelopathic effects on native legumes and forbs. We then used meta-analysis to examine the evidence to date for allelopathic effects of Epichloë endophytes. We found very little evidence for negative allelopathic effects of Epichloë in cool-season grasses across a range of methodologies, test plant species, and response measures, and there was little difference among E. festucae var. lolii strains. Negative allelopathic effects were detected only for root hair measures, which were from a single study. Positive effects on biomass were found for some experimental subgroups, including legumes. However, the majority of response variables showed no evidence for Epichloë allelopathy. Although there is currently little evidence for negative Epichloë allelopathic effects, our meta-analysis identified several research gaps. Experiments testing the functional belowground effects of Epichloë presence may help to determine its effects on non-host plant performance via plant-soil feedbacks.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".