Khasa D (2003). Mycorrhizal and root endophytic fungi of containerized Picea glauca seedlings assessed by rDNA analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungi colonizing fine roots of containerized Picea glauca seedlings were assessed in four large conifer nurseries in northern Alberta. PCR amplification of fungal rDNA (internal transcribed spacer and a portion of the 5 ¢ end of the large subunit gene) from random samples of fine feeder roots gave between 1 and 4 amplicons per seedling. Amplicons were either separated by elec-trophoresis and sequenced directly, or cloned and sequenced. The resulting sequences were compared to sequences obtained from cultures established from seedling roots and from Gen-Bank by maximum parsimony analysis. ITS sequences formed 11 distinct clades, each including at least one reference sequence. The ectomycorrhizal basidiomycetes Thelephora americana and Amphinema byssoides were dominant, whereas ascomycetes were less common. Fungi with sequences similar to members of the Heleotiales which form ericoid mycorrhizas were also present. Correspondence analysis revealed strong positive and negative associations among fungal taxa as well as an influence of applied fertilizer level on fungal diversity and species composition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".