Is there an association between host mycorrhizal type dominance and plant species richness in forests in the United States?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant-soil feedbacks (PSFs) mediated by mycorrhizal fungi are thought to influence plant community and structure in a variety of ways. Here we focus on the general hypothesis that the impacts that PSFs have on plant community structure depend in part on whether arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) or ectomycorrhizal (EcM) hosts dominate in the system. Specifically, it has been hypothesized that plants that form symbioses with AM fungi experience predominantly negative conspecific feedbacks and plants that form symbioses with EcM fungi experience predominantly positive conspecific feedbacks. [1] One consequence of this feedback is that EcM host-dominated communities should have lower richness and evenness compared to AM host-dominated communities. Contrary to these expectations, a recent study of forests in the US did not support their hypothesis that AM host-dominated forests would have higher plant diversity than EcM host-dominated forests. [2] Instead, they found that forest plots with roughly 50% of each mycorrhizal host type showed the greatest diversity, even after accounting for the fact that plots with both host types would also have the greatest pool of potential species. However, in most temperate forests, the majority of plant diversity resides in the herbaceous and shrub plants of the ground layer, and studies have shown a potential for tree and ground plants to interact through common mycorrhizal networks. [3] Our goal therefore is to investigate the influence of dominance of host mycorrhizal type on plant richness and evenness in both the tree and ground layers, with a dataset that provides a more accurate estimate of plant richness in US forests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".