Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial communities are composed of distinct groups of potentially interacting lineages, each thought to occupy a distinct ecological niche. It remains unclear, however, how quickly niche preference evolves and whether more closely related lineages are more likely to share ecological niches. We addressed these questions by following the dynamics of two bloom-forming cyanobacterial genera over an 8-year time-course in Lake Champlain, Canada, using 16S amplicon sequencing and measurements of several environmental parameters. The two genera, Microcystis (M) and Dolichospermum (D), are frequently observed simultaneously during bloom events and thus have partially overlapping niches. However, the extent of their niche overlap is debated, and it is also unclear to what extent niche partitioning occurs among strains within each genus. To identify strains within each genus, we applied minimum entropy decomposition (MED) to 16S rRNA gene sequences. We confirmed that at a genus level, M and D have different preferences for nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. Within each genus, we also identified strains differentially associated with temperature, precipitation, and concentrations of nutrients and toxins. In general, niche similarity between strains (as measured by co-occurrence over time) declined with genetic distance. This pattern is consistent with habitat filtering – in which closely related taxa are ecologically similar, and therefore tend to co-occur under similar environmental conditions. In contrast with this general pattern, similarity in certain niche dimensions (notably particulate nitrogen and phosphorus) did not decline linearly with genetic distance, and instead showed a complex polynomial relationship. This observation suggests the importance of processes other than habitat filtering – such as competition between closely related taxa, or convergent trait evolution in distantly related taxa – in shaping particular traits in microbial communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.821 | 0.760 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".