Influences of space, soil, nematodes and plants on microbial community composition of chalk grassland soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbial communities respond to a variety of environmental factors related to resources (e.g. plant and soil organic matter), habitat (e.g. soil characteristics) and predation (e.g. nematodes, protozoa and viruses). However, the relative contribution of these factors on microbial community composition is poorly understood. Here, we sampled soils from 30 chalk grassland fields located in three different chalk hill ridges of Southern England, using a spatially explicit sampling scheme. We assessed microbial communities via phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analyses and PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and measured soil characteristics, as well as nematode and plant community composition. The relative influences of space, soil, vegetation and nematodes on soil microorganisms were contrasted using variation partitioning and path analysis. Results indicate that soil characteristics and plant community composition, representing habitat and resources, shape soil microbial community composition, whereas the influence of nematodes, a potential predation factor, appears to be relatively small. Spatial variation in microbial community structure was detected at broad (between fields) and fine (within fields) scales, suggesting that microbial communities exhibit biogeographic patterns at different scales. Although our analysis included several relevant explanatory data sets, a large part of the variation in microbial communities remained unexplained (up to 92% in some analyses). However, in several analyses, significant parts of the variation in microbial community structure could be explained. The results of this study contribute to our understanding of the relative importance of different environmental and spatial factors in driving the composition of soil-borne microbial communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".