Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31396182›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2019

Are Nanoparticles a Threat to Mycorrhizal and Rhizobial Symbioses? A Critical Review.

Hui Tian, Melanie Kah, Khalil Kariman

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Microbe-plant-nanoparticle interactions: role in bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2024
    Review
  13. Enhancing Vicia fabaBMC plant biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as an underground saviuor for protecting plants from abiotic stresses.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Hui TianKey Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and Agri-environment in Northwest China, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Natural Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China.
Melanie KahSchool of Environment, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Khalil KarimanSchool of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Northwest A&F University · CNUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil microorganisms can be exposed to, and affected by, nanoparticles (NPs) that are either purposely released into the environment (e.g., nanoagrochemicals and NP-containing amendments) or reach soil as nanomaterial contaminants. It is crucial to evaluate the potential impact of NPs on key plant-microbe symbioses such as mycorrhizas and rhizobia, which are vital for health, functioning and sustainability of both natural and agricultural ecosystems. Our critical review of the literature indicates that NPs may have neutral, negative, or positive effects on development of mycorrhizal and rhizobial symbioses. The net effect of NPs on mycorrhizal development is driven by various factors including NPs type, speciation, size, concentration, fungal species, and soil physicochemical properties. As expected for potentially toxic substances, NPs concentration was found to be the most critical factor determining the toxicity of NPs against mycorrhizas, as even less toxic NPs such as ZnO NPs can be inhibitory at high concentrations, and highly toxic NPs such as Ag NPs can be stimulatory at low concentrations. Likewise, rhizobia show differential responses to NPs depending on the NPs concentration and the properties of NPs, rhizobia, and growth substrate, however, most rhizobial studies have been conducted in soil-less media, and the documented effects cannot be simply interpreted within soil systems in which complex interactions occur. Overall, most studies indicating adverse effects of NPs on mycorrhizas and rhizobia have been performed using either unrealistically high NP concentrations that are unlikely to occur in soil, or simple soil-less media (e.g., hydroponic cultures) that provide limited information about the processes occurring in the real environment/agrosystems. To safeguard these ecologically paramount associations, along with other ecotoxicological considerations, large-scale application of NPs in farming systems should be preceded by long-term field trials and requires an appropriate application rate and comprehensive (preferably case-specific) assessment of the context parameters i.e., the properties of NPs, microbial symbionts, and soil. Directions and priorities for future research are proposed based on the gaps and experimental restrictions identified.

Indexed as

colonizationmycorrhizananoparticlesnodulerhizobiasoiltoxicity

Identifiers

PMID31396182
PMCPMC6668500
OpenAlexW2955733187

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.