ArticleOecologia2018
Duration of the conditioning phase affects the results of plant-soil feedback experiments via soil chemical properties.
Article in Oecologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct effects of AM fungi and root pathogens drive differential plant-microbial interactions in steppe graminoids and forbs.BMC ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Predicting microbially mediated plant coexistence is sensitive to vital rate identity and soil conditioning history.Ecology · 2025Article
- Agricultural soil legacy influences multitrophic interactions between crops, their pathogens and pollinators.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Plant-soil feedback effects on conspecific and heterospecific successors of annual and perennial Central European grassland plants are correlated.Nature plants · 2023Article
- Plant-soil interactions in the native range of two congeneric species with contrasting invasive success.Oecologia · 2023Article
- Plant-driven changes in soil microbial communities influence seed germination through negative feedbacks.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant-soil feedback (PSF) is a fundamental mechanism explaining plant community composition. Two-phase experiments, i.e., conditioning and feedback, represent a common methodology to study PSF. The duration of the conditioning phase varies among studies and the PSF observed is often explained by its biotic component. Little is known about the temporal variation of PSF and its abiotic component. As early life stages are crucial for plant establishment, we grew Rorippa austriaca in soil conditioned over 2, 4, 6 or 8 weeks by a conspecific or a co-occurring species, Agrostis capillaris. For each conditioning duration, we analysed the soil chemical properties and the direction and intensity of intra- or inter-specific feedbacks. With increasing duration, the negative intra- and inter-specific feedbacks became stronger and weaker, respectively. The inter-specific feedback was more negative than the intra-specific feedback at 2 weeks and this reversed thereafter. The Mg content decreased with conditioning duration whatever the conditioning species was. With increasing duration, conditioning by R. austriaca strongly decreased pH, while A. capillaris did not affect pH. The K and P contents were not affected by the conditioning duration and were higher in R. austriaca soil than in A. capillaris soil. Our results suggest that not only conditioning species but also duration of conditioning phase may affect the magnitude of PSF. The changes in soil chemical properties linked to the conditioning species or the conditioning phase duration may drive the feedbacks by affecting plant growth directly or via the interacting microbial communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29214471What 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.