The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Populations of endogonaceous fungi at two locations in central Iowa
Abstract
Two different sites in central Iowa were planted with hybrid poplars and subsequently sampled over a growing season for spores of endogonaceous fungi. At one of the sites, the effects of plowing and herbicide treatment on spore numbers also were examined. Ten species of fungi in the genera Acaulospora, Gigaspora, and Glomus were recorded at the first site. The second location yielded 12 species from the same genera. In both sites, the distribution of spores was highly variable. The poplars rarely became endomycorrhizal and had no effect on spore populations during the experimental period. Changes in spore populations were correlated with soil-moisture level. Evidence was found for some depression of spore production caused by plowing and herbicide treatment. The conclusion was drawn that small samples with but few replicates may not adequately represent populations of endogonaceous spores.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cheeke, T. E., Cruzan, M. B., & Rosenstiel, T. N. (2013) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00702-13 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Walker, C., Mize, C. W., & McNabb Jr., H. S.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1982-12-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2518-2529
- ISSN
- 0008-4026 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090938269
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
