Foliar bacterial communities of trembling aspen in a common garden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbial associations with plants are widely distributed and are structured by a number of biotic and physical factors. Among biotic factors, the host plant genotype may be integral to these plant-microbe interactions. Trees in the genus Populus have become models for studies in scaling effects of host plant genetics and in plant-microbe interactions. Using 454 pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, we assessed the foliar bacterial community of 7 genotypes of mature trembling aspen trees (Populus tremuloides Michx.) grown in a common garden. Trees were selected based on prior analyses showing clonal variation in their concentration of chemicals conferring resistance against insect herbivores. At broad taxonomic designations, the bacterial community of trembling aspen was similar across all plant genotypes. At a finer taxonomic scale, the foliage of these trees varied in their community composition, but there was no distinct pattern to colonization or abundance related to plant genotype. The most abundant operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were classified as Ralstonia, Bradyrhizobium, Pseudomonas, and Brucella. These OTUs varied across the common garden, but there was no significant effect of host plant genotype or spatial position on the abundance of these members. Our results suggest that aspen genotype is less important in the structuring of its foliar bacterial communities than are other, poorly understood processes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".