Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29382946›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2018

Suppression of the activity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi by the soil microbiota.

Nanna B Svenningsen, Stephanie J Watts-Williams, Erik J Joner, Fabio Battini, Aikaterini Efthymiou, Carla Cruz-Paredes, Ole Nybroe, Iver Jakobsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  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
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Nanna B SvenningsenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Stephanie J Watts-WilliamsSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3467-0662
Erik J JonerNorwegian Institute for Bioeconomy Research, Ås Akershus, Norway.
Fabio BattiniDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Aikaterini EfthymiouDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2596-6405
Carla Cruz-ParedesDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Ole NybroeDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Iver JakobsenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark. ivja@plen.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4548-8535

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) colonise roots of most plants; their extra-radical mycelium (ERM) extends into the soil and acquires nutrients for the plant. The ERM coexists with soil microbial communities and it is unresolved whether these communities stimulate or suppress the ERM activity. This work studied the prevalence of suppressed ERM activity and identified main components behind the suppression. ERM activity was determined by quantifying ERM-mediated P uptake from radioisotope-labelled unsterile soil into plants, and compared to soil physicochemical characteristics and soil microbiome composition. ERM activity varied considerably and was greatly suppressed in 4 of 21 soils. Suppression was mitigated by soil pasteurisation and had a dominating biotic component. AMF-suppressive soils had high abundances of Acidobacteria, and other bacterial taxa being putative fungal antagonists. Suppression was also associated with low soil pH, but this effect was likely indirect, as the relative abundance of, e.g., Acidobacteria decreased after liming. Suppression could not be transferred by adding small amounts of suppressive soil to conducive soil, and thus appeared to involve the common action of several taxa. The presence of AMF antagonists resembles the phenomenon of disease-suppressive soils and implies that ecosystem services of AMF will depend strongly on the specific soil microbiome.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaSoil MicrobiologyBacteriaMyceliumMycorrhizaePlantsSoilSoil

Identifiers

PMID29382946
PMCPMC5931975

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.