Seasonal Changes in the Rhizosphere MicrobialCommunities Associated with Field-Grown Genetically ModifiedCanola ( <i>Brassicanapus</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of transgenic plants into agricultural ecosystems has raised the question of the ecological impact of these plants on nontarget organisms, such as soil bacteria. Although differences in both the genetic structure and the metabolic function of the microbial communities associated with some transgenic plant lines have been established, it remains to be seen whether these differences have an ecological impact on the soil microbial communities. We conducted a 2-year, multiple-site field study in which rhizosphere samples associated with a transgenic canola variety and a conventional canola variety were sampled at six times throughout the growing season. The objectives of this study were to identify differences between the rhizosphere microbial community associated with the transgenic plants and the rhizosphere microbial community associated with the conventional canola plants and to determine whether the differences were permanent or depended on the presence of the plant. Community-level physiological profiles, fatty acid methyl ester profiles, and terminal amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis profiles of rhizosphere microbial communities were compared to the profiles of the microbial community associated with an unplanted, fallow field plot. Principal-component analysis showed that there was variation in the microbial community associated with both canola variety and growth season. Importantly, while differences between the microbial communities associated with the transgenic plant variety were observed at several times throughout the growing season, all analyses indicated that when the microbial communities were assessed after winter, there were no differences between microbial communities from field plots that contained harvested transgenic canola plants and microbial communities from field plots that did not contain plants during the field season. Hence, the changes in the microbial community structure associated with genetically modified plants were temporary and did not persist into the next field season.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".