Dispersal Limitation Governs Bacterial Community Assembly in the Northern Pitcher Plant (<i>Sarracenia purpurea</i>) at the Continental Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Ecological theory suggests that dispersal limitation and selection by climatic factors influence bacterial community assembly at a continental scale, yet the conditions governing the relative importance of each process remains unclear. The carnivorous pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea provides a model aquatic microecosystem to assess bacterial communities across the host plant's north–south range in North America. This study determined the relative influences of dispersal limitation and environmental selection on the assembly of bacterial communities inhabiting S. purpurea pitchers at the continental scale. Location Eastern United States and Canada. Time Period 2016. Major Taxa Studied Bacteria inhabiting S. purpurea pitchers. Methods Pitcher morphology, fluid, inquilines and prey were measured, and pitcher fluid underwent DNA sequencing for bacterial community analysis. Null modelling of β‐diversity provided estimates for the contributions of selection and dispersal limitation to community assembly, complemented by an examination of spatial clustering of individuals. Phylogenetic and ecological associations of co‐occurrence network module bacteria was determined by assessing the phylogenetic diversity and habitat preferences of member taxa. Results Dispersal limitation was evident from between‐site variation and spatial aggregation of individual bacterial taxa in the S. purpurea pitcher system. Selection pressure was weak across the geographic range, yet network module analysis indicated environmental selection within subgroups. A group of aquatic bacteria held traits under selection in warmer, wetter climates, and midge abundance was associated with selection for traits held by a group of saprotrophs. Processes that increased pitcher fluid volume weakened selection in one module, possibly by supporting greater bacterial dispersal. Conclusion Dispersal limitation governed bacterial community assembly in S. purpurea pitchers at a continental scale (74% of between‐site comparisons) and was significantly greater than selection across the range. Network modules showed evidence for selection, demonstrating that multiple processes acted concurrently in bacterial community assembly at the continental scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".