MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microbiome assembly and stability during start-up of a full-scale, two-phase anaerobic digester fed cow manure and mixed organic feedstocks

2023· article· en· W4390297980 on OpenAlexaff
Amy C. DeCola, Lucinda C. Toppen, Kennedy P. Brown, Ali Reza Dadkhah, Donna M. Rizzo, Ryan Ziels, Matthew Scarborough

Bibliographic record

VenueBioresource Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Department of Education
KeywordsAnaerobic digestionBiogasAnaerobic exerciseManureMetagenomicsArchaeaMicrobiomeMicrobial population biologyHydrolysisMethaneBioreactorPulp and paper industryWaste managementBiologyFood scienceBacteriaBiochemistryEcologyEngineeringGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon transformations during anaerobic digestion are mediated by complex microbiomes, but their assembly is poorly understood, especially in full-scale digesters. Gene-centric metagenomics combining functional and taxonomic classification was performed for an on-farm digester during start-up. Cow manure and organic waste pre-treated in a hydrolysis tank were fed to the methane-producing digester and the volatile solids loading rate was slowly increased from 0 to 3.5 kg volatile solids m−3 d−1 over one year. The microbial community in the anaerobic digester exhibited a high ratio of archaea, which were dominated by hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Bacteria in the anaerobic digester had a high abundance of genes for ferredoxin cycling, H2 generation, and more metabolically complex fermentations than in the hydrolysis tank. In total, the results show that a functionally stable microbiome was achieved quickly during start-up and that the microbiome created in the low-pH hydrolysis tank did not persist in the downstream anaerobic digester.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioresource TechnologySame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207