Manipulating Wild and Tamed Phytobiomes: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This white paper presents a series of perspectives on current and future phytobiome management, discussed at the Wild and Tamed Phytobiomes Symposium in University Park, PA, U.S.A., in June 2018. To enhance plant productivity and health, and to translate lab- and greenhouse-based phytobiome research to field applications, the academic community and end-users need to address a variety of scientific, practical, and social challenges. Prior discussion of phytobiomes has focused heavily on plant-associated bacterial and fungal assemblages, but the phytobiomes concept covers all factors that influence plant function. Here we discuss various management considerations, including abiotic conditions (e.g., soil and nutrient applications), microorganisms (e.g., bacterial and fungal assemblages, bacterial and fungal inoculants, and viruses), macroorganisms (e.g., arthropods and plant genetics), and societal factors (e.g., communication approaches and technology diffusion). An important near-term goal for this field should be to estimate the potential relative contribution of different components of the phytobiome to plant health, as well as the potential and risk of modifying each in the near future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".