Comparison of the microbial diversity and abundance between the freshwater land-locked lakes of Schirmacher Oasis, and the perennially ice-covered Lake Untersee in East Antarctica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme conditions such as low temperature, dryness, and constant UV-radiation in terrestrial Antarctica are limiting factors to the survival of microbial populations. The objective of this study was to investigate the microbial diversity and enumeration between the open water lakes of Schirmacher Oasis and the permanently ice-covered Lake Untersee. The lakes in Schirmacher Oasis possessed an abundant and diverse group of microorganisms compared to Lake Untersee. Furthermore, the microbial diversity between two lakes in Schirmacher Oasis (Lake L27C and L47) was compared by culture-based molecular approach. It was determined that L27C had a richer microbial diversity representing 4 different phyla and 7 different genera. In contrast L47 consisted of 3 different phyla and 6 different genera. The difference in microbial community could be due to the wide range of pH between L27C (pH 9.1) and L47 (pH 5.7). Most of the microbes isolated from these lakes consisted of adaptive biological pigmentation. Characterization of the microbial community found in the freshwater lakes of East Antarctica is important because it gives a further glimpse into the adaptation and survival strategies found in extreme conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".