Soil and plant effects on microbial community structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of two different plant species (corn and soybean) and three different soil types on microbial community structure in the rhizosphere. Our working hypothesis was that the rhizosphere effect would be strongest on fast-growing aerobic heterotrophs, while there would be little or no rhizosphere effect on oligotrophic and other slow-growing microorganisms. Culturable bacteria and fungi had larger population densities in the rhizosphere than in bulk soil. Communities were characterized by soil fatty acid analysis and by substrate utilization assays for bacteria and fungi. Fatty acid analysis revealed a very strong soil effect but little plant effect on the microbial community, indicating that the overall microbial community structure was not affected by the rhizosphere. There was a strong rhizosphere effect detected by the substrate utilization assay for fast-growing aerobic heterotrophic bacterial community structure, with soil controls and rhizosphere samples clearly distinguished from each other. There was a much weaker rhizosphere effect on fungal communities than on bacterial communities as measured by the substrate utilization assays. At this coarse level of community analysis, the rhizosphere microbial community was impacted most by soil effects, and the rhizosphere only affected a small portion of the total bacteria.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".