Islands in the sand: are all hypolithic microbial communities the same?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypolithic microbial communities (hypolithons) are complex assemblages of phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms associated with the ventral surfaces of translucent minerals embedded in soil surfaces. Past studies on the assembly, structure and function of hypolithic communities have tended to use composite samples (i.e. bulked hypolithic biomass) with the underlying assumption that samples collected from within a 'homogeneous' locality are phylogenetically homogeneous. In this study, we question this assumption by analysing the prokaryote phylogenetic diversity of multiple individual hypolithons: i.e. asking the seemingly simple question of 'Are all hypolithons the same'? Using 16S rRNA gene-based phylogenetic analysis of hypolithons recovered for a localized moraine region in the Taylor Valley, McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica, we demonstrate that these communities are heterogeneous at very small spatial scales (<5 m). Using null models of phylogenetic turnover, we showed that this heterogeneity between hypolithons is probably due to stochastic effects such as dispersal limitations, which is entirely consistent with the physically isolated nature of the hypolithic communities ('islands in the sand') and the almost complete absence of a liquid continuum as a mode of microbial transport between communities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".