Roots alter soil microbial diversity and interkingdom interactions in diversified agricultural landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex interactions between plant roots and soil microorganisms are, broadly, well described. Yet the patterns of microbe–microbe interaction and their association with the root functional traits are less known especially in plant communities at the edges of agricultural landscapes. To address this gap, we measured the active soil microbial communities with and without the presence of plant roots, using in situ root exclusions, in four plant communities at the edges of agricultural fields: undisturbed natural deciduous forests (FOREST1), coniferous forests (FOREST2), rehabilitated agroforests (AGROFOREST) and perennial herbaceous grass buffers (GRASS). Amplicon‐based analysis of 16S rRNA and ITS transcripts was used to evaluate soil bacterial, archaeal and fungal communities, and their interactions, with ‘roots' and with ‘no roots'. Plants roots were measured for a suite of functional traits and explored in association with microbial community composition. Significant differences in bacterial and archaeal but not fungal diversity were observed between soil plots with ‘roots' and with ‘no roots'. Network analysis illustrated intra and inter kingdoms co‐occurrence patterns respond to the presence of plant roots, with GRASS exhibiting distinct patterns in comparison to tree‐dominated soils. A shift in microbial hub from bacterial to fungal was observed with the exclusion of roots; Planctomycetes (OM190)_10 was replaced by Archaeorhizomyces in AGROFOREST site. Microbial taxa strongly correlate with root traits especially specific root length, root diameter and root tissue density indicating root traits are predictors of microbial community composition. This study validates the vital role of root traits in predicting plant–microbe interactions and highlights the key role of fungi in microbial interkingdom interactions when roots are absent. These findings have significant ecosystem level implications, with the rising interest in associated biodiversity in and at the edges of agricultural landscapes, this work suggests that plant community selection for specific root traits may drive microbial community structure and ecosystem services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".