MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100489647

FUNGAL MICROBIOLOGY Spatial Community Structure of Mountain Pine Beetle Fungal Symbionts Across a Latitudinal Gradient

2010· article· en· W7100489647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligateMountain pine beetleDendroctonusFacultativeCommunity structureLatitudeHost (biology)Community
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

# The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Symbiont redundancy in obligate insect–fungal systems is thought to buffer the insect host against symbiont loss and to extend the environmental conditions under which the insect can persist. The mountain pine beetle is associated with at least three well-known and putatively obligate ophiostomatoid fungal symbionts that vary in their environmental tolerances. To better understand the spatial variation in beetle–fungal symbiotic associations, we examined the community composition of ophiostomatoid fungi associated with the mountain pine beetle as a function of latitude and elevation. The region investigated represents the leading edge of a recent outbreak of mountain pine beetle in western Canada. Using regression and principal components analysis, we identified significant spatial patterns in fungal species abundances that indicate symmetrical replacement between two of the three fungi along a latitudinal gradient and little variation in response to elevation. We also identified significant variation in the prevalence of pair-wise species combinations that occur within beetle galleries. Frequencies of pair-wise combinations were significantly different from what was expected given overall species abundances. These results suggest that complex processes of competitive exclusion and coexistence help determine fungal community composition and Amanda D. Roe and Patrick M. A. James have joint first authorship. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00248-011-9841-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and InformationFrench-language works237,207