Data from: Plant-mycorrhizal fungus co-occurrence network lacks substantial structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe interactions between plants and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) maintain a crucial link between macroscopic organisms and the soil microbial world. These interactions are of extreme importance for the diversity of plant communities and ecosystem functioning. Despite this importance, only recently has the structure of plant–AMF interaction networks been studied. These recent studies, which used genetic data, suggest that these networks are highly structured, very similar to plant–animal mutualistic networks. However, the assembly process of plant–AMF communities is still largely unknown, and an important feature of plant–AMF interactions has not been incorporated: they occur at an extremely localized scale. Studying plant–AMF networks in a spatial context seems therefore a crucial step. This paper studies a plant–AMF spatial co-occurrence network using novel methodology based on information theory and a unique set of spatially explicit species-level data. We apply three null models of which only one accounts for spatial effects. We find that the data show substantial departures from null expectations for the two non-spatial null models. However, for the null model considering spatial effects, there are few significant co-occurrences compared with the other two null models. Thus, plant–AMF spatial co-occurrences seem to be mostly explained by stochasticity, with a small role for other factors related to plant–AMF specialization. Furthermore, we find that the network is not significantly nested or modular. We conclude that this plant–AMF spatial co-occurrence network lacks substantial structure and, therefore, plants and AMF species do not track each other over space. Thus, random encounters seem more important in the first step of the assembly of plant–AMF communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".