Microbial communities in sandy beaches from the three domains of life differ by microhabitat and intertidal location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microbial communities of sandy beaches are poorly described despite the biogeochemical importance and ubiquity of these ecosystems. Using metabarcoding of the 16S and 18S rRNA genes, we investigated the diversity, microhabitats (with or between sand grains) and intertidal distributions of microorganisms (including meiofauna) from pristine sandy beaches in British Columbia, Canada, and hypothesized that abiotic variations due to microhabitat or intertidal gradients influence the distribution of microorganisms on local scales. Bacterial, archaeal and protistan communities of the sand were clearly distinct from interstitial communities, and from planktonic communities of the overlying seawater, which correlated with differences in function and lifestyle (e.g., sulphur reduction and gliding motility). In contrast, meiofaunal communities could not be distinguished by sample type, suggesting that they are more frequently mobilized between these microhabitats. Across intertidal zones, high intertidal, mid intertidal and low intertidal/swash communities were distinct and correlated with moisture, organic carbon and phosphate content, implying that the distribution of microorganisms is influenced by intertidal abiotic gradients. However, few taxa at the genus or species level individually contributed to this zonation pattern; rather, a unique combination of multiple microbial taxa was probably responsible. Although significant differences in microbial community composition on sandy beaches can be attributed to microhabitat and intertidal gradients, further investigations are needed to assess community assembly processes, the consistency of these distributions, and the functions of the majority of the microorganisms observed in the sand and their effects on the biogeochemistry and ecology of sandy beaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".