Land Use Intensity Controls Actinobacterial Community Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actinobacteria are major producers of secondary metabolites; however, it is unclear how they are distributed in the environment. DNA was extracted from forest, pasture and cultivated soils, street sediments (dust and material in place), and sediments affected by animal activity (e.g. guano, vermicompost) and characterised with two actinobacterial and a bacterial-specific 16S rDNA primer set. Amplicons (140/156) generated with the two actinobacterial-specific and amplicons (471) generated with bacterial-specific primers were analysed. Amplicons from actinobacterial-specific primer were disproportionately actinomycetal from animal-affected (soil) samples and street sediments and either verrucomicrobial (i.e. non-actinobacterial) and from a novel non-actinomycetal actinobacterial group for soils. Actinobacterial amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism fingerprints clustered by land use, with cultivated soils clustering apart from uncultivated soils. Actinobacterial amplicons generated with eubacterial primers were overwhelmingly from (116/126) street sediments; acidobacterial amplicons from soils (74/75). In two street samples, >90% of clones were actinomycetal. Actinomycetes are selected in terrestrial soils and sediments by cultivation, urbanisation and animal activity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".