PLANT MICROBE INTERACTIONS Host Associations Between Fungal Root Endophytes and Boreal Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fungal root endophytes colonize root tissue concomitantly with mycorrhizal fungi, but their identities and host preferences are largely unknown. We cultured fungal endophytes from surface-sterilized Cenococcum geo-philum ectomycorrhizae of Betula papyrifera, Abies balsa-mea, and Picea glauca from two boreal sites in eastern Canada. Isolates were initially grouped on the basis of cultural morphology and then identified by internal tran-scribed spacer ribosomal DNA sequencing or by PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism. Phylogenetic analysis of the sequence data revealed 31 distinct phylotypes among the isolates, comprising mainly members of the ascomycete families Helotiaceae, Dermateaceae, Myxotri-chaceae, and Hyaloscyphaceae, although other fungi were also isolated. Multivariate analyses indicate a clear separa-tion among the endophyte communities colonizing each host tree species. Some phylotypes were evenly distributed across the roots of all three host species, some were found preferentially on particular hosts, and others were isolated from single hosts only. The results indicate that fungal root endophytes of boreal trees are not randomly distributed, but instead form relatively distinct assemblages on different host tree species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".