MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957516661

Exploring bacterial communities and their function for soil health under different cropping systems

2012· article· en· W2957516661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ru Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCroppingSoil healthFunction (biology)AgroforestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyAgricultureEnvironmental planningAgricultural engineeringSoil waterEcologyBiologySoil scienceEngineeringSoil organic matter
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhizosphere and soil bacteria are important drivers in nearly all biochemical cycles in terrestrial ecosystems and participate in maintaining health and productivity of soil in agriculturally managed systems. However, the effect of agricultural management systems on bacterial communities is still poorly understood. In this study, cultural methods and advanced molecular methods (terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) and 454- pyrosequencing) were used to identify shifts in soil and rhizosphere bacterial diversity, community composition, and functions under different cropping systems in Manitoba, Canada. This included monoculture vs. rotation, zero tillage vs. conventional tillage, and organic farming vs. conventional farming. Results showed that: (1) different cropping systems did not significantly influence the diversity of bacterial communities. However, a significant variation in relative abundances of bacterial communities at both the phylum and genus level was observed among different cropping systems. Compared to conventional farming systems, organic farming system had a higher percentage of the phylum Proteobacteria (many Plant Growth Promoting Rhizosbacteria) and a lower percentage of the phylum Actinobacteria. When canola monoculture was compared to wheat-oat-canola-pea rotation, a significantly higher percentage of Proteobacteria and a lower percentage of Actinobacteria were found in the rotational system. Wheat monoculture shared similar bacterial communities with wheat-oat-canola-pea rotation. Zero tillage did not change bacterial community profiles except for an increase in Firmicutes (many PGPR), compared to conventional tillage. At the genus level, significant differences were found for the dominant genera Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Stenotrophomonas, Brevundimonas, Burkholderia, Marmoricola, Microlunatus, and Solirubrobacter. The bacterial distribution was strongly associated with soil pH. (2) The cropping systems also influenced the antibiotic-producing Pseudomonas populations determined through PCR-based screening for the detection of genes involved in the biosynthesis of antibiotics. It was found that pyrrolnitrin- and phenazine- producing Pseudomonas spp. were more prevalent in the soil under zero tillage and organic farming systems, while 2,4-DAPG and pyoluteorin-producing strains were not found in this study. This comprehensive study provided fundamental information on how different cropping systems affect soil and rhizosphere bacterial communities, which can be used to guide Manitoba farmers to choose proper farming systems to maintain soil health and increase PGPR populations in soil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.100 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207