Ecological processes differ in community assembly of Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes in a biogeographical survey of groundwater habitats in the Quebec region (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aquifers are inhabited by microorganisms from the three major domains of life: Archaea, Eukaryotes and Bacteria. Although interest in the processes that govern the assembly of these microbial communities is growing, their study is almost systematically limited to one of the three domains of life. Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes are however interconnected and essential to understand the functioning of their living ecosystems. We, therefore, conducted a spatial study of the distribution of microorganisms by sampling 35 wells spread over an area of 10,000 km 2 in the Quebec region (Canada). The obtained data allowed us to define the impact of geographic distance and geochemical water composition on the microbial communities. A null model approach was used to infer the relative influence of stochastic and determinist ecological processes on the assembly of the microbial community from all three domains. We found that the organisms from these three groups are mainly governed by stochastic mechanisms. However, this apparent similarity does not reflect the differences in the processes that govern the phyla assembly. The results obtained highlight the importance of considering all the microorganisms without neglecting their individual specificities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".