Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27835688›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Edaphic Selection Pressures as Drivers of Contrasting White Spruce Ectomycorrhizal Fungal Community Structure and Diversity in the Canadian Boreal Forest of Abitibi-Témiscamingue Region.

Martin B Nadeau, Damase P Khasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Martin B NadeauCentre for Forest Research, Institute of Integrative and Systems Biology, and Canadian Research Chair in Forest and Environmental Genomics, Université Laval, Quebec city, QC, Canada, G1V0A6.
Damase P KhasaCentre for Forest Research, Institute of Integrative and Systems Biology, and Canadian Research Chair in Forest and Environmental Genomics, Université Laval, Quebec city, QC, Canada, G1V0A6.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known about edaphic selection pressures as drivers of contrasting white spruce ectomycorrhizal fungal community structure and diversity in the Canadian boreal forest. We hypothesized that community composition differs among the four sites sampled-nursery, mining site, forest edge, and natural forest. Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungal community structure and diversity was studied at the four locations with soil fertility gradient through morpho-molecular and phylogenetic analyses in relationships with rhizospheric soil chemical properties. 41 different species were identified. Mining site had a significantly different species composition than the surrounding environments. Soil pH and percentage of roots colonized by ECM fungi increased while soil P, N, Fe, C, K, Mg, Al, Ca, and Na contents declined across the soil fertility gradient: nursery → natural forest → forest edge → mining site. Contrary to the preference of acid soils by ECM fungi, a few ecologically adapted to high pH, poor soil chemical fertility, and low organic matter content colonize white spruce roots on the non-acidogenic mining site, allowing natural regeneration of white spruce seedlings. Other ECM fungi are adapted to high fertigation level of commercial nursery. This study clearly shows the contrasting difference in white spruce ectomycorrhizal fungal community structure and diversity driven by edaphic selection pressures.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticSoil MicrobiologyCanadaDNA, FungalGenetic VariationHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMetals, Alkaline EarthMicrobial ConsortiaMycorrhizaePhylogenyPiceaSoilTaigaDNA, FungalMetals, Alkaline EarthSoil

Identifiers

PMID27835688
PMCPMC5106017

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.