Environment–host–microbial interactions shape the <i>Sarracenia</i><i>purpurea</i> microbiome at the continental scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of climate, habitat structure, and higher trophic levels on microbial diversity is only beginning to be understood. Here, we examined the influence of climate variables, plant morphology, and the abundance of aquatic invertebrates on the microbial biodiversity of the northern pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea. The plant's cup-shaped leaves fill with rainwater and support a miniature, yet full-fledged, ecosystem with a diverse microbiome that decomposes captured prey and a small network of shredding and filter-feeding aquatic invertebrates that feed on microbes. We characterized pitcher microbiomes of 108 plants sampled at 36 sites from Florida to Quebec. Structural equation models revealed that annual precipitation and temperature, plant size, and midge abundance had direct effects on microbiome taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity. Climate variables also exerted indirect effects through plant size and midge abundance. Further, spatial structure and climate influenced taxonomic composition, but not phylogenetic composition. Our results suggest that direct effects of midge abundance and climate and indirect effects of climate through its effect on plant-associated factors lead to greater richness of microbial phylotypes in warmer, wetter sites.
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) | 0.001 | 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".