Identification of Major Organisms Involved in Nutritional Ecosystem in the Acidic Soil From Pennsylvania, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microorganisms play a critical role in the structure and functioning of soil ecosystems. Within acidic soil across the northeastern United States and Canada, we have little understanding of the microbial diversity present and its relationship to the biochemical cycles. The current study is aimed at understanding the taxonomical and functional diversities in the acidic soil obtained from near various types of trees, how the diversities change as a function of depth, and the linkage between taxonomical and functional diversities. From eight sampling locations, soil samples were collected from three horizons (depths). The three depths were 0–10 cm (A), 11–25 cm (B), and 26–40 cm (C). Results indicate that across all the samples analyzed, Bradyrhizobium and Candidatus Solibacter are the most abundant bacteria in the soil microbiome. The differences in the soil microbiome across the samples were attributed to the abundance of individual organism’s present in the soil and not to the presence or absence of individual organisms. Subsystem level analysis of the soil microbiome sequences indicate that there is higher level of abundance of genes attributed to regulation and cell signaling. A low level of sequences were detected for sulfur metabolism, potassium metabolism, iron acquisition and metabolism, and phosphorous metabolism. Structure-functional analysis indicate that Bradyrhizobium , Rhodopseudomonas , and Burkholderia are the major organisms involved in the nutritional ecosystem functioning within acidic soil. Based on the results, we propose utilizing a consortium of these organisms as an environmentally friendly alternative to the use of chemicals to maintain soil fertility and ecosystem functioning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".