Patterns in forest soil microbial community composition across a range of regional climates in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil microbial communities can be characterized by community structure and function (community composition) across a spectrum of spatial scales, and variation in soil microbial composition has been associated with a number of environmental gradients. This study investigates the structure and function of soil microbial communities under mature, undisturbed forested sites across a range of regional climates in British Columbia and Alberta, and also examines the variation in community composition within sites. Phospholipid fatty acid analysis was used to investigate the structure of soil microbial communities and total soil microbial biomass at each site. Extra-cellular enzyme assays established the functional potential of the soil microbial community at each site. Multivariate analysis of the data showed that the soil microbial communities under different forest types did significantly separate along the regional climate gradient by both community structure and function, despite high local variation in the communities. Soil moisture content and soil organic matter concentration consistently exhibited the strongest relationship with microbial community characteristics, although the functional and structural responses to the external drivers were different. Microbial community function and structure also changed with soil depth but not with time of sampling. Microbial community function was related to the regional annual average precipitation gradient. Most of the locations exhibited unique microbial community functional profiles in their soil layers; however the enzyme activities in the samples from the driest (Ponderosa Pine) and wettest (Mountain Hemlock) locations were notably different from each other and from those of the other locations, especially in the organic layers. The moist maritime-influenced Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) forest exhibited microbial community structural characteristics which were unique from those of the other forest locations. The higher abundance of bacteria relative to fungi in the CWH forest soils may be related to the significantly higher available nitrogen concentrations at this site.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".