Increase in abundance and decrease in richness of soil microbes following Hurricane Otto in three primary forest types in the Northern Zone of Costa Rica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known of how hurricane-induced deposition of canopy material onto tropical forest floors influences the soil microbial communities involved in decomposition of these materials. In this study, to identify how soil bacterial and fungal communities might change after a hurricane, and their possible roles in the C and N cycles, soils were collected from five 2000 m2 permanent plots in Lowland, Upland and Riparian primary forests in Costa Rica 3 months before and 7 months after Hurricane Otto damaged the forests. The soil Water, inorganic N and Biomass C increased and total organic C decreased Post-Hurricane, all of which best predicted the changes in the Post-Hurricane soil microbial communities. Post-Hurricane soils from all forest types showed significant changes in community composition of total bacteria, total fungi, and five functional groups of microbes (i.e., degrading/lignin degrading, NH4+-producing, and ammonium oxidizing bacteria, and the complex C degrading/wood rot/lignin degrading and ectomycorrhizal fungi), along with a decrease in richness in genera of all groups. As well, the mean proportion of DNA sequences (MPS) of all five functional groups increased. There were also significant changes in the MPS values of 7 different fungal and 7 different bacterial genera that were part of these functional groups. This is the first evidence that hurricane-induced deposition of canopy material is stimulating changes in the soil microbial communities after the hurricane, involving changes in specific taxonomic and functional group genera, and reduction in the community richness while selecting for dominant genera possibly better suited to process the canopy material. These changes may represent examples of taxonomic switching of functionally redundant microbial genera in response to dramatic changes in resource input. It is possible that differences in these microbial communities and genera may serve as indicators of disturbed and recovering regional soil ecosystems, and should be evaluated in the 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".