MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202899376 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25971-z

Persistence of plant-mediated microbial soil legacy effects in soil and inside roots

2021· article· en· W3202899376 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Emilia Hannula, Robin Heinen, Martine Huberty, Katja Steinauer, Jonathan R. De Long, Renske Jongen, Т. Martijn Bezemer

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGénome QuébecNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMcGill University
KeywordsPlant communityPlant growthGrasslandBiologyPersistence (discontinuity)EcologyPlant rootsColonizationSoil microbiologyMicrobiomePlant speciesMicrobial population biologyAgronomyBotanyEnvironmental scienceSoil waterEcological successionBacteriaGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant-soil feedbacks are shaped by microbial legacies that plants leave in the soil. We tested the persistence of these legacies after subsequent colonization by the same or other plant species using 6 typical grassland plant species. Soil fungal legacies were detectable for months, but the current plant effect on fungi amplified in time. By contrast, in bacterial communities, legacies faded away rapidly and bacteria communities were influenced strongly by the current plant. However, both fungal and bacterial legacies were conserved inside the roots of the current plant species and their composition significantly correlated with plant growth. Hence, microbial soil legacies present at the time of plant establishment play a vital role in shaping plant growth even when these legacies have faded away in the soil due the growth of the current plant species. We conclude that soil microbiome legacies are reversible and versatile, but that they can create plant-soil feedbacks via altering the endophytic community acquired during early ontogeny.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations242
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207