Re-examining the relationship between virus and microbial cell abundances in the global oceans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine viruses are critical drivers of ocean biogeochemistry and their abundances vary spatiotemporally in the global oceans, with upper estimates exceeding 10 8 per ml. Over many years, a consensus has emerged that virus abundances are typically 10-fold higher than prokaryote abundances. The use of a fixed-ratio suggests that the relationship between virus and prokaryote abundances is both predictable and linear. However, the true explanatory power of a linear relationship and its robustness across diverse ocean environments is unclear. Here, we compile 5671 prokaryote and virus abundance estimates from 25 distinct marine surveys to characterize the relationship between virus and prokaryote abundances. We find that the median virus-to-prokaryote ratio (VPR) is 10:1 and 16:1 in the near-and sub-surface oceans, respectively. Nonetheless, we observe substantial variation in the VPR and find either no or limited explanatory power using fixed-ratio models. Instead, virus abundances are better described as nonlinear, power-law functions of prokaryote abundances - particularly when considering relationships within distinct marine surveys. Estimated power-laws have scaling exponents that are typically less than 1, signifying that the VPR decreases with prokaryote density, rather than remaining fixed. The emergence of power-law scaling presents a challenge for mechanistic models seeking to understand the ecological causes and consequences of marine virus-microbe interactions. Such power-law scaling also implies that efforts to average viral effects on microbial mortality and biogeochemical cycles using “representative” abundances or abundance-ratios need to be refined if they are to be utilized to make quantitative predictions at regional or global ocean scales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".