Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24221903›Full record

ArticleMycorrhiza2014

Comparison of root-associated communities of native and non-native ectomycorrhizal hosts in an urban landscape.

K Lothamer, S P Brown, J D Mattox, A Jumpponen

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K LothamerDivision of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA.
S P Brown
J D Mattox
A Jumpponen
Kansas State University · USManhattan High School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-native tree species are often used as ornamentals in urban landscapes. However, their root-associated fungal communities remain yet to be examined in detail. Here, we compared richness, diversity and community composition of ectomycorrhizosphere fungi in general and ectomycorrhizal (EcM) fungi in particular between a non-native Pinus nigra and a native Quercus macrocarpa across a growing season in urban parks using 454-pyrosequencing. Our data show that, while the ectomycorrhizosphere community richness and diversity did not differ between the two host, the EcM communities associated with the native host were often more species rich and included more exclusive members than those of the non-native hosts. In contrast, the ectomycorrhizosphere communities of the two hosts were compositionally clearly distinct in nonmetric multidimensional ordination analyses, whereas the EcM communities were only marginally so. Taken together, our data suggest EcM communities with broad host compatibilities and with a limited numbers of taxa with preference to the non-native host. Furthermore, many common fungi in the non-native Pinus were not EcM taxa, suggesting that the fungal communities of the non-native host may be enriched in non-mycorrhizal fungi at the cost of the EcM taxa. Finally, while our colonization estimates did not suggest a shortage in EcM inoculum for either host in urban parks, the differences in the fungi associated with the two hosts emphasize the importance of using native hosts in urban environments as a tool to conserve endemic fungal diversity and richness in man-made systems.

Indexed as

BiotaCitiesMycorrhizaePinusPlant RootsQuercus

Identifiers

PMID24221903
OpenAlexW2047286493

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.