Dramatic differences in gut bacterial densities help to explain the relationship between diet and habitat in rainforest ants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abundance is a key parameter in microbial ecology, and important to estimates of potential metabolite flux, impacts of dispersal, and sensitivity of samples to technical biases such as laboratory contamination. However, modern amplicon-based sequencing techniques by themselves typically provide no information about the absolute abundance of microbes. Here, we use fluorescence microscopy and quantitative PCR as independent estimates of microbial abundance to test the hypothesis that microbial symbionts have enabled ants to dominate tropical rainforest canopies by facilitating herbivorous diets, and compare these methods to microbial diversity profiles from 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Through a systematic survey of ants from a lowland tropical forest, we show that the density of gut microbiota varies across several orders of magnitude among ant lineages, with median individuals from many genera only marginally above detection limits. Supporting the hypothesis that microbial symbiosis is important to dominance in the canopy, we find that the abundance of gut bacteria is positively correlated with stable isotope proxies of herbivory among canopy-dwelling ants, but not among ground-dwelling ants. Notably, these broad findings are much more evident in the quantitative data than in the 16S rRNA sequencing data. Our results help to resolve a longstanding question in tropical rainforest ecology, and have broad implications for the interpretation of sequence-based surveys of microbial diversity.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".