Seasonal Dynamics of Lake Winnipeg’s Microbial Communities Reveal Aerobic Anoxygenic Phototrophic Populations Coincide with Sunlight Availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this first comprehensive study of Lake Winnipeg’s microbial communities, limnetic and littoral euphotic zones were examined during each season from 2016 through 2020. Classical cultivation and modern high-throughput sequencing techniques provided quantification and identification of key phototrophic populations, including aerobic anoxygenic phototrophs (AAP). Annual dynamics found total heterotrophs reached 4.23 × 106 CFU/g in littoral sands, and 7.69 × 104 CFU/mL in summer littoral waters on oligotrophic media, higher counts than for copiotrophic compositions. Limnetic numbers inversely dipped to 4.34 × 103 CFU/mL midsummer. Cultured AAP did not follow heterotrophic trends, instead peaking during the spring in both littoral and limnetic waters as 19.1 and 4.7% of total copiotrophs, or 3.9 and 4.9% of oligotrophs, decreasing till autumn each year. Complementary observations came from environmental 16S V4 rRNA gene analysis, as AAP made up 1.49 and 1.02% of the littoral and limnetic sequenced communities in the spring, declining with seasonal progression. Spatial and temporal fluctuations of microbes compared to environmental factors exposed photosynthetic populations to independently and regularly fluctuate in the ecosystem. Oxygenic phototrophic numbers expectantly matched the midsummer peak of Chl a and b, oxygenic photosynthesis related carbon fixation, and water temperature. Independently, AAP particularly colonized spring littoral areas more than limnetic, and directly corresponded to habitat conditions that specifically promoted growth: the requirement of light and organic material.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".