Data from: Manipulation of soil mycorrhizal fungi Influences floral display traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most plants form root hyphal relationships with mycorrhizal fungi, especially arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). These associations are known to positively impact plant biomass and competitive ability. However, less is known about how mycorrhizae may impact other ecological interactions, such as those mediated by pollinators. We performed a meta-regression of studies that manipulated AMF and measured traits related to pollination, including floral display, rewards, visitation, and reproduction, extracting 63 studies with 423 effects. On average, the presence of mycorrhizae was associated with positive effects on floral traits. Specifically, we found impacts of AMF on floral display, pollinator visitation and reproduction, and a positive but non-significant impact on rewards. Studies manipulating mycorrhizae with fungicide tended to report contrasting results, possibly because fungicide destroys both beneficial and pathogenic microbes. Our study highlights the potential for relationships with mycorrhizal fungi to play an important, yet underrecognized role in plant-pollinator interactions. With heightened awareness of the need for a more sustainable agricultural industry, mycorrhizal fungi may offer the opportunity to reduce reliance on inorganic fertilizers. At the same time, fungicides are now ubiquitous in agricultural systems. Our study demonstrates indirect ways in which plant-belowground fungal partnerships could manifest in plant-pollinator interactions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.124 | 0.031 |
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".