Testing a ‘genes‐to‐ecosystems’ approach to understanding aquatic–terrestrial linkages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 'genes-to-ecosystems' approach has been proposed as a novel avenue for integrating the consequences of intraspecific genetic variation with the underlying genetic architecture of a species to shed light on the relationships among hierarchies of ecological organization (genes → individuals → communities → ecosystems). However, attempts to identify genes with major effect on the structure of communities and/or ecosystem processes have been limited and a comprehensive test of this approach has yet to emerge. Here, we present an interdisciplinary field study that integrated a common garden containing different genotypes of a dominant, riparian tree, Populus trichocarpa, and aquatic mesocosms to determine how intraspecific variation in leaf litter alters both terrestrial and aquatic communities and ecosystem functioning. Moreover, we incorporate data from extensive trait screening and genome-wide association studies estimating the heritability and genes associated with litter characteristics. We found that tree genotypes varied considerably in the quality and production of leaf litter, which contributed to variation in phytoplankton abundances, as well as nutrient dynamics and light availability in aquatic mesocosms. These 'after-life' effects of litter from different genotypes were comparable to the responses of terrestrial communities associated with the living foliage. We found that multiple litter traits corresponding with aquatic community and ecosystem responses differed in their heritability. Moreover, the underlying genetic architecture of these traits was complex, and many genes contributed only a small proportion to phenotypic variation. Our results provide further evidence that genetic variation is a key component of aquatic-terrestrial linkages, but challenge the ability to predict community or ecosystem responses based on the actions of one or a few genes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".