Seasonal Community Succession of the Phyllosphere Microbiome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leaf microbiome is influenced by both biotic and abiotic factors. Currently, we know little about the relative importance of these factors in determining microbiota composition and dynamics. To explore this issue, we collected weekly leaf samples over a 98-day growing season from multiple cultivars of common bean, soybean, and canola planted at three locations in Ontario, Canada, and performed Illumina-based microbiome analysis. We find that the leaf microbiota at the beginning of the season is very strongly influenced by the soil microbiota but, as the season progresses, it differentiates, becomes significantly less diverse, and transitions to having a greater proportion of leaf-specific taxa that are shared among all samples. A phylogenetic investigation of communities by reconstruction of unobserved states imputation of microbiome function inferred from the taxonomic data found significant differences between the soil and leaf microbiome, with a significant enrichment of motility gene categories in the former and metabolic gene categories in the latter. A network co-occurrence analysis identified two highly connected clusters as well as subclusters of putative pathogens and growth-promoting bacteria. These data reveal some of the complex ecological dynamics that occur in microbial communities over the course of a growing season and highlight the importance of community succession.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".