Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23715868›Full record

ArticleMycorrhiza2014

Distribution and diversity of Paraglomus spp. in tilled agricultural soils.

Paul Gosling, Maude Proctor, Julie Jones, Gary D Bending

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Mycorrhiza, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paul GoslingSchool of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Maude Proctor
Julie Jones
Gary D Bending

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding of the ecology of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi comes primarily from the order Glomerales, and relatively little is known of the ecology of other orders including the Paraglomerales. We investigated the distribution of the Paraglomerales across the English agricultural landscape under different management systems. Soils were collected from 11 tilled agricultural sites. Presence of Paraglomerales was assessed using PCR amplification of 18S/ITS region ribosomal DNA isolated from trap plants, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism and cloning. Paraglomus spp. were detected in all samples from one location and sporadically in six more, but not at the other locations. Distribution was not related to soil physiochemical characteristics, but the Paraglomaceae were significantly more common in soils under organic management. Cloning of samples from three sites produced sequences closely related to Paraglomus laccatum but only distantly related to Paraglomus brasilianum and Paraglomus occultum. Individual sites had between 10 and 27 separate terminal restriction fragments (T-RFs). The large number of T-RFs reflected a significant sequence diversity in the ITS region. Paraglomerales were, therefore, widely distributed across the agricultural landscape, though with patchy distribution and low diversity. More intensive agricultural management appeared to impact negatively on Paraglomus spp.

Indexed as

AgricultureBiodiversitySoil MicrobiologyDNA, Ribosomal SpacerEnglandGlomeromycotaMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSoilDNA, Ribosomal SpacerRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSoil

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.