MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1930053182

Soil Bacterial Community Structure Under Exotic Versus Native Understory Forbs in a Woodland Remnant in Indiana

2008· article· en· W1930053182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barbara L. Swedo, Clare Glinka, David Rollo, Heather L. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySpecies richnessPlant communityNative plantTerminal restriction fragment length polymorphismSpecies evennessIntroduced speciesCommunity structureInvasive speciesForbEcologySpecies diversityBotanyRestriction fragment length polymorphismGrassland
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasions of exotic plants have strong effects on aboveground plant community structure, competitively excluding native plant species and driving down community diversity. Using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) analysis of PCR-amplified 16S-rDNA sequences, we characterized eubacterial community structure in soil collected on the Bloomington campus of Indiana University beneath native Canadian wildginger (Asarum canadense L.) and exotic invasive winter creeper (Euonymus fortunei (Turcz.) Hand.-Maz.). Overall indices of eubacterial diversity, richness, and evenness were similar beneath the two plant species. However, multivariate analysis of TRFLP profiles revealed significant differences among plant species in soil eubacterial community composition. Soil pH and water content also varied significantly by plant species. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that invasive exotics can influence belowground community structure, although microbial community composition may be more highly influenced than other aspects of microbial diversity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Indiana Academy of ScienceSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207