Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on Soil‐ and Plant‐Associated Microbial Communities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgenic or genetically modified plants possess novel genes that impart beneficial characteristics such as herbicide resistance. One of the least understood areas in the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops is their impact on soil- and plant-associated microbial communities. The potential for interaction between transgenic plants and plant residues and the soil microbial community is not well understood. The recognition that these interactions could change microbial biodiversity and affect ecosystem functioning has initiated a limited number of studies in the area. At this time, studies have shown the possibility that transgenes can be transferred to native soil microorganisms through horizontal gene transfer, although there is not evidence of this occurring in the soil. Furthermore, novel proteins have been shown to be released from transgenic plants into the soil ecosystem, and their presence can influence the biodiversity of the microbial community by selectively stimulating the growth of organisms that can use them. Microbial diversity can be altered when associated with transgenic plants; however, these effects are both variable and transient. Soil- and plant-associated microbial communities are influenced not only by plant species and transgene insertion but also by environmental factors such as field site and sampling date. Minor alterations in the diversity of the microbial community could affect soil health and ecosystem functioning, and therefore, the impact that plant variety may have on the dynamics of the rhizosphere microbial populations and in turn plant growth and health and ecosystem sustainability, requires further study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it