Contribution of Soil Ciliates to Biomass and Secondary Production in a Subtropical Forest of Puerto Rico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protists, ciliates in particular, play a role in ecosystem functioning by recycling microbial biomass, and thus, nutrients and energy. Studies on their secondary production in aquatic ecosystems suggest that their overall contribution to annual secondary production is relatively minor, only becoming significant during bloom episodes. It remains unclear if the ecological role of soil ciliates, as estimated by their secondary production, is similarly minor. Temporal data on ciliate abundance and biovolume among the rhizosphere of three flowering plant species were used to estimate biomass and potential secondary production of soil ciliates in a subtropical forest of Puerto Rico. Ciliate abundance, biomass, and secondary production were estimated in the top 5 cm of soil during both the dry and wet seasons. Mean ciliate abundances in these months were 5 ± 10.3 and 16 ± 16.1 (n = 93 soil samples) for nanociliates and microciliates, respectively. Mean ciliate biomass was 41,854 ± 37,055 pg C g-1 of dry weight soil. Mean nano- and microciliate biomass were 418 ± 704.4 pg C g-1 of dry weight soil and 45,315 ± 39,466.8 pg C g-1 of dry weight soil, respectively. The season in which the ciliates were collected significantly affected ciliate abundance and biomass, but this effect showed no predictable pattern, suggesting a lack of seasonality. Mean daily ciliate secondary production (the product of biomass and growth rate) was 1.74 × 104 ± 1.95 × 104 pg C g-1 of dry weigth soil d-1 (0.002 kJ m-2 d-1 or 0.047 kJ m-3 d-1), ranging from 0 to 107,804 pg C g-1 of dry weigth soil d-1. Based on monthly precipitation data, annual ciliate secondary production was estimated to be 40.0 × 105 pg C g-1 of dry weight soil yr-1, equivalent to 1.1 kJ m-2 yr-1 or 21.7 kJ m-3 yr-1. Reduced secondary production estimates, in addition to low mean consumption of microbial biomass (0.002%), indicates that ciliates have a relatively minor role in this subtropical soil ecosystem.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".