Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25118069›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

How does conversion of natural tropical rainforest ecosystems affect soil bacterial and fungal communities in the Nile river watershed of Uganda?

Peter O Alele, Douglas Sheil, Yann Surget-Groba, Shi Lingling, Charles H Cannon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 6 countries.

Peter O AleleKey Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China; University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, P. R. China; Great Nile Conservation Centre (GNCC), Lira, Uganda; Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation (ITFC), Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST), Kabale, Uganda.
Douglas SheilDepartment of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia; Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation (ITFC), Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST), Kabale, Uganda.
Yann Surget-GrobaKey Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China.
Shi LinglingKey Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China; University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, P. R. China.
Charles H CannonKey Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, P. R. China; Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNXishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden · CNNorwegian University of Life Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uganda's forests are globally important for their conservation values but are under pressure from increasing human population and consumption. In this study, we examine how conversion of natural forest affects soil bacterial and fungal communities. Comparisons in paired natural forest and human-converted sites among four locations indicated that natural forest soils consistently had higher pH, organic carbon, nitrogen, and calcium, although variation among sites was large. Despite these differences, no effect on the diversity of dominant taxa for either bacterial or fungal communities was detected, using polymerase chain reaction-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE). Composition of fungal communities did generally appear different in converted sites, but surprisingly, we did not observe a consistent pattern among sites. The spatial distribution of some taxa and community composition was associated with soil pH, organic carbon, phosphorus and sodium, suggesting that changes in soil communities were nuanced and require more robust metagenomic methods to understand the various components of the community. Given the close geographic proximity of the paired sampling sites, the similarity between natural and converted sites might be due to continued dispersal between treatments. Fungal communities showed greater environmental differentiation than bacterial communities, particularly according to soil pH. We detected biotic homogenization in converted ecosystems and substantial contribution of β-diversity to total diversity, indicating considerable geographic structure in soil biota in these forest communities. Overall, our results suggest that soil microbial communities are relatively resilient to forest conversion and despite a substantial and consistent change in the soil environment, the effects of conversion differed widely among sites. The substantial difference in soil chemistry, with generally lower nutrient quantity in converted sites, does bring into question, how long this resilience will last.

Indexed as

Soil MicrobiologyBacteriaBiodiversityCalciumCarbonConservation of Natural ResourcesDNA, BacterialFungiHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationNitrogenRainforestRiversRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoilUgandaCalciumCarbonDNA, BacterialNitrogenRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil

Identifiers

PMID25118069
PMCPMC4130604
OpenAlexW2043086790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.