MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408956572 · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.70089

Flowering Plant Microbiomes and Network Interactions Across an Urban Gradient

2025· article· en· W4408956572 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine D. Chau, Makaylee K. Crone, Phuong Nam Nguyen, Sandra M. Rehan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Microbiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWeston Family Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiomeEcologyEvolutionary biologyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used flowers to explore how ephemeral anthosphere microbiomes differ among flowering plant species and along an urban gradient. Here, we sequenced 16S rRNA for bacteria, ITS1 for fungi and rbcL for plant DNA from 10 different plant species sampled to characterise anthosphere microbiomes along an urban gradient and identify important network interactions. Bacterial and fungal flower microbiomes significantly differed in diversity across plant species, especially among Asteraceae and Fabaceae. Across all analyses, four taxa, the bacteria Pantoea and Rosenbergiella and the fungi Alternaria and Cladosporium were highly prevalent and contributed to the majority of microbiome composition differences observed between plant species. These four taxa harbour strains or species that may be either pathogenic or beneficial to plants. Across a land use gradient, the plant community bacterial and fungal microbiome was stable and consistent. Flower-plant networks confirmed all focal flower families in abundance on each sampled flower, with the addition of Paulowniaceae, suggesting that pollinators visiting the focal flowers also visit this plant family. Our findings reveal that anthosphere microbiomes are diverse at the plant community level and encouragingly remain robust against urbanisation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental MicrobiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207