Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30254322›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2019

Niche and fitness differences determine invasion success and impact in laboratory bacterial communities.

Shao-Peng Li, Jiaqi Tan, Xian Yang, Chao Ma, Lin Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Recent Advances in the Ecology of Bloom-FormingInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Shao-Peng LiSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1730-3433
Jiaqi TanSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Xian YangSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA.
Chao MaAnhui Province Key Lab of Farmland Ecological Conservation and Pollution Prevention, School of Resources and Environment, Anhui Agricultural University, 230036, Hefei, Anhui, China. chaoma@ahau.edu.cn.
Lin JiangSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA. lin.jiang@biology.gatech.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-0794

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing awareness of invasion in microbial communities worldwide, but the mechanisms behind microbial invasions remain poorly understood. Specifically, we know little about how the evolutionary and ecological differences between invaders and natives regulate invasion success and impact. Darwin's naturalization hypothesis suggests that the phylogenetic distance between invaders and natives could be a useful predictor of invasion, and modern coexistence theory proposes that invader-native niche and fitness differences combine to determine invasion outcome. However, the relative importance of phylogenetic distance, niche difference and fitness difference for microbial invasions has rarely been examined. By using laboratory bacterial microcosms as model systems, we experimentally assessed the roles of these differences for the success of bacterial invaders and their impact on native bacterial community structure. We found that the phylogenetic distance between invaders and natives failed to explain invasion success and impact for two of three invaders at the phylogenetic scale considered. Further, we found that invasion success was better explained by invader-native niche differences than relative fitness differences for all three invaders, whereas invasion impact was better explained by invader-native relative fitness differences than niche differences. These findings highlight the utility of considering modern coexistence theory to gain a more mechanistic understanding of microbial invasions.

Indexed as

EcosystemModels, BiologicalBacteriaBiological EvolutionIntroduced SpeciesLaboratoriesMicrobiotaPhylogenySelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID30254322
PMCPMC6331569

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.