Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25922908›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2015

Contrasting spatial patterns and ecological attributes of soil bacterial and archaeal taxa across a landscape.

Florentin Constancias, Nicolas P A Saby, Sébastien Terrat, Samuel Dequiedt, Wallid Horrigue, Virginie Nowak, Jean-Philippe Guillemin, Luc Biju-Duval, Nicolas Chemidlin Prévost-Bouré, Lionel Ranjard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 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
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

10 authors.

Florentin ConstanciasINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Nicolas P A SabyINRA, US1106 InfoSol, F-45075, Orléans, France.
Sébastien TerratINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie-Plateforme GenoSol, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Samuel DequiedtINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie-Plateforme GenoSol, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Wallid HorrigueINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie-Plateforme GenoSol, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Virginie NowakINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Jean-Philippe GuilleminAgroSup Dijon, UMR1347 Agroécologie, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Luc Biju-DuvalINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Nicolas Chemidlin Prévost-BouréAgroSup Dijon, UMR1347 Agroécologie, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.
Lionel RanjardINRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie, BP 86510, F-21000, Dijon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even though recent studies have clarified the influence and hierarchy of environmental filters on bacterial community structure, those constraining bacterial populations variations remain unclear. In consequence, our ability to understand to ecological attributes of soil bacteria and to predict microbial community response to environmental stress is therefore limited. Here, we characterized the bacterial community composition and the various bacterial taxonomic groups constituting the community across an agricultural landscape of 12 km(2) , by using a 215 × 215 m systematic grid representing 278 sites to precisely decipher their spatial distribution and drivers at this scale. The bacterial and Archaeal community composition was characterized by applying 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing directly to soil DNA from samples. Geostatistics tools were used to reveal the heterogeneous distribution of bacterial composition at this scale. Soil physical parameters and land management explained a significant amount of variation, suggesting that environmental selection is the major process shaping bacterial composition. All taxa systematically displayed also a heterogeneous and particular distribution patterns. Different relative influences of soil characteristics, land use and space were observed, depending on the taxa, implying that selection and spatial processes might be differentially but not exclusively involved for each bacterial phylum. Soil pH was a major factor determining the distribution of most of the bacterial taxa and especially the most important factor explaining the spatial patterns of α-Proteobacteria and Planctomycetes. Soil texture, organic carbon content and quality were more specific to a few number of taxa (e.g., β-Proteobacteria and Chlorobi). Land management also influenced the distribution of bacterial taxa across the landscape and revealed different type of response to cropping intensity (positive, negative, neutral or hump-backed relationships) according to phyla. Altogether, this study provided valuable clues about the ecological behavior of soil bacterial and archaeal taxa at an agricultural landscape scale and could be useful for developing sustainable strategies of land management.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcosystemSoil MicrobiologySpatial AnalysisArchaeaBacteriaCluster AnalysisPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sagroecologybacterial communitiesecological attributeslandscapesoilspatial distribution

Identifiers

PMID25922908
PMCPMC4475392

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.