What’s past is past, mostly: Brassicaceae host plants mask the feedback from the previous year’s soil history on bacterial communities, except when the Brassicaceae hosts experience drought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous soil history and the current plant hosts are two plant-soil feedbacks that operate at different time-scales to influence the structure soil bacterial communities. In this study, we used a MiSeq metabarcoding strategy to describe the impact of five Brassicaceae host plant species, and three different soil histories, on the structure of their bacterial root and rhizosphere communities at full flower. We found that the Brassicaceae host plants were consistently significant in structuring the bacterial communities. Four host plants (Sinapis alba, Brassica napus, B. juncea, B. carinata) formed nearly the same bacterial communities, regardless of soil history. Camelina sativa host plants structured phylogenetically distinct bacterial communities compared to the other hosts, particularly in their roots. Soil history established the previous year was only a significant factor for bacterial community structure when the feedback of the Brassicaceae host plants was weakened, potentially due to limited soil moisture during a dry year. Understanding how plant-soil feedbacks operate at different time-scales and are involved in how microbial communities are structured is a pre-requisite for employing microbiome technologies in improving agricultural systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".