Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24623527›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2014

Fungal and bacterial community succession differs for three wood types during decay in a forest soil.

Lynn Prewitt, Youngmin Kang, Madhavi L Kakumanu, Mark Williams

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Microorganisms · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Lynn PrewittDepartment of Forest Products, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9820, Starkville, MS, 39762, USA.
Youngmin Kang
Madhavi L Kakumanu
Mark Williams

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wood decomposition by soil microorganisms is vital to carbon and nutrient cycles of forested ecosystems. Different wood types decompose at different rates; however, it is not known if there are differences in microbial community succession associated with the decay of different wood types. In this study, the microbial community associated with the decay of pine (decay-susceptible wood), western red cedar (decay resistant) and ACQ-treated pine (Ammoniacal Copper Quaternary, preservative-treated pine for decay resistance) in forest soil was characterized using DNA sequencing, phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis, and microbial activity over a 26-month period. Bray-Curtis ordination using an internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequence and PLFA data indicated that fungal communities changed during succession and that wood type altered the pattern of succession. Nondecay fungi decreased over the 26 months of succession; however, by 18 months of decay, there was a major shift in the fungal communities. By this time, Trametes elegans dominated cedar and Phlebia radiata dominated pine and ACQ-treated pine. The description of PLFA associated with ACQ-treated pine resembled cedar more than pine; however, both PLFA and ITS descriptions indicated that fungal communities associated with ACQ-treated pine were less dynamic, perhaps a result of the inhibition by the ACQ preservative, compared with pine and cedar. Overall, fungal community composition and succession were associated with wood type. Further research into the differences in community composition will help to discern their functional importance to wood decay.

Indexed as

ForestsSoil MicrobiologyBacteriaDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerFungiMicrobial ConsortiaPinus taedaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SThujaWoodDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

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.