Soil inoculation alters the endosphere microbiome of chrysanthemum roots and leaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims This study examines how inoculation with live soil influences the assembly of the endosphere microbiome of leaves and roots of chrysanthemum. Methods Sterilized soil was inoculated with 10% soil in which grasses had grown. Chrysanthemum was planted in these soils and control plants were grown in 100% sterilized soil. All plants were exposed to thrips, and leaves and roots were collected from inoculated and control plants that experienced high and low thrips damage. DNA was extracted and the bacterial and fungal community inside roots and leaves was determined using Illumina sequencing. Results Inoculation increased bacterial diversity in root but not in leaf tissues. The endosphere of both roots and leaves was dominated by Pseudomonadaceae. In leaves, the relative abundance of Pseudomonadaceae was higher in inoculated than in control plants, whereas this was opposite in roots. Leaves contained more rare bacterial families than roots. The number of fungal reads was very low and the endopshere did not differ between plants with high or low thrips damage. Conclusions Bacterial communities inside chrysanthemum root and leaf tissues differ considerably. Soil inoculation with entire microbiomes can be used to change root and foliar bacterial microbiomes and this is particularly effective in root tissues.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".