ArticleMicrobial ecology2014
Effects of water-saving irrigation on emissions of greenhouse gases and prokaryotic communities in rice paddy soil.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Dynamics of bacterial communities in rice field soils as affected by different long-term fertilization practices.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2016Article
- Seasonal dynamics of bacterial and archaeal methanogenic communities in flooded rice fields and effect of drainage.Frontiers in microbiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of water-saving irrigation on emissions of greenhouse gases and soil prokaryotic communities were investigated in an experimental rice field. The water layer was kept at 1-2 cm in the water-saving (WS) irrigation treatment and at 6 cm in the continuous flooding (CF) irrigation treatment. WS irrigation decreased CH(4) emissions by 78 % and increased N(2)O emissions by 533 %, resulting in 78 % reduction of global warming potential compared to the CF irrigation. WS irrigation did not affect the abundance or phylogenetic distribution of bacterial/archaeal 16S rRNA genes and the abundance of bacterial/archaeal 16S rRNAs. The transcript abundance of CH(4) emission-related genes generally followed CH(4) emission patterns, but the difference in abundance between mcrA transcripts and amoA/pmoA transcripts best described the differences in CH(4) emissions between the two irrigation practices. WS irrigation increased the relative abundance of 16S rRNAs and functional gene transcripts associated with Anaeromyxobacter and Methylocystis spp., suggesting that their activities might be important in emissions of the greenhouse gases. The N(2)O emission patterns were not reflected in the abundance of N(2)O emission-related genes and transcripts. We showed that the alternative irrigation practice was effective for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from rice fields and that it did not affect the overall size and structure of the soil prokaryotic community but did affect the activity of some groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.