Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31740751›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Mixed-Cropping Between Field Pea Varieties Alters Root Bacterial and Fungal Communities.

Anthony Horner, Samuel S Browett, Rachael E Antwis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of Pea (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Anthony HornerSchool of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Samuel S BrowettSchool of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Rachael E AntwisSchool of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK. r.e.antwis@salford.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8849-8194

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern agricultural practices have vastly increased crop production but negatively affected soil health. As such, there is a call to develop sustainable, ecologically-viable approaches to food production. Mixed-cropping of plant varieties can increase yields, although impacts on plant-associated microbial communities are unclear, despite their critical role in plant health and broader ecosystem function. We investigated how mixed-cropping between two field pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties (Winfreda and Ambassador) influenced root-associated microbial communities and yield. The two varieties supported significantly different fungal and bacterial communities when grown as mono-crops. Mixed-cropping caused changes in microbial communities but with differences between varieties. Root bacterial communities of Winfreda remained stable in response to mixed-cropping, whereas those of Ambassador became more similar to Winfreda. Conversely, root fungal communities of Ambassador remained stable under mixed-cropping, and those of Winfreda shifted towards the composition of Ambassador. Microbial co-occurrence networks of both varieties were stronger and larger under mixed-cropping, which may improve stability and resilience in agricultural soils. Both varieties produced slightly higher yields under mixed-cropping, although overall Ambassador plants produced higher yields than Winfreda plants. Our results suggest that variety diversification may increase yield and promote microbial interactions.

Indexed as

BacteriaCrop ProductionCrops, AgriculturalFungiMicrobiotaPisum sativumPlant Roots

Identifiers

PMID31740751
PMCPMC6861290

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.