Habitats Within the Plant Root Differ in Bacterial Network Topology and Taxonomic Assortativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The root microbiome is composed of distinct epiphytic (rhizosphere) and endophytic (endosphere) habitats. Differences in abiotic and biotic factors drive differences in microbial community diversity and composition between these habitats, though how they shape the interactions among community members is unknown. Here, we coupled a large-scale characterization of the rhizosphere and endosphere bacterial communities of 30 plant species across two watering treatments with co-occurrence network analysis to understand how root habitats and soil moisture shape root bacterial network properties. We used a novel bootstrapping procedure and null network modeling to overcome some of the limitations associated with microbial co-occurrence network construction and analysis. Endosphere networks had elevated node betweenness centrality versus the rhizosphere, indicating greater overall connectivity among core bacterial members of the root endosphere. Taxonomic assortativity was higher in the endosphere, whereby positive co-occurrence was more likely between bacteria within the same phylum while negative co-occurrence was more likely between bacterial taxa from different phyla. This taxonomic assortativity could be driven by positive and negative interactions among members of the same or different phylum, respectively, or by similar niche preferences associated with phylum rank among root inhabiting bacteria across plant host species. In contrast to the large differences between root habitats, drought had limited effects on network properties but did result in a higher proportion of shared co-occurrences between rhizosphere and endosphere networks. Our study points to fundamentally different ecological processes shaping bacterial co-occurrence across root habitats. [Formula: see text] Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".