Distinct responses of oomycete plant parasites according to their lifestyle in a landscape-scale metabarcoding survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oomycetes are an ubiquitous protistan lineage including devastating crop parasites. Although their ecology in agrosystems has been widely studied, little is known of their distribution in natural and semi-natural ecosystems. We provide here a baseline of the diversity and distribution of soil oomycetes, classified by lifestyles (biotrophy, hemibiotrophy and saprotrophy), at the landscape scale in temperate grassland and forest. From 600 soil samples, we obtained 1,148 Operational Taxonomy Units representing ∼20 million Illumina reads (region V4, 18S rRNA gene). We found a majority of hemibiotrophic plant pathogens, which are parasites spending part of their life cycle as saprotrophs after the death of the host. Overall both grassland and forest constitute an important reservoir of plant pathogens. In forests, relative abundances of obligate biotrophs and hemibiotrophs differed between regions and showed opposite responses to edaphic conditions and human-induced management intensification, suggesting different ecological requirements for these two functional guilds.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".