Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32144464›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2020

Impact of Soil Microbial Amendments on Tomato Rhizosphere Microbiome and Plant Growth in Field Soil.

Andrea Nuzzo, Aditi Satpute, Ute Albrecht, Sarah L Strauss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Heterogeneous Effects ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Field Site-Specific Effects of anFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea NuzzoUniversity of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, 34142, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1630-6499
Aditi SatputeUniversity of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, 34142, USA.
Ute AlbrechtUniversity of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, 34142, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1889-9598
Sarah L StraussUniversity of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, 34142, USA. strauss@ufl.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7494-5320
University of Florida · US

Funding

USDA-NIFA Hatch 1011186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increased interest by the agricultural industry in microbial amendments that leverage natural beneficial interactions between plants and soil microbes to improve crop production. However, translating fundamental knowledge from laboratory experiments into efficient field application often has mixed results, and there is less clarity about the interaction between added microbes and the native microbial community, where microorganisms belonging to the same phylogenic clades often reside. In this study, four commercially available microbial amendments were examined in two greenhouse experiments using field soil to assess their impact on tomato plant growth and the native soil microbial communities. The amendments contained different formulations of plant growth-promoting bacteria (Lactobacilli, Rhizobia, etc.), yeasts, and mycorrhizal fungi. The application of the tested amendments in greenhouse conditions resulted in no significant impact on plant growth. A deeper statistical analysis detected variations in the microbial communities that accounted only for 0.25% of the total species, particularly in native taxa not related to the inoculated species and represented less than 1% of the total variance. This suggests that under commercial field conditions, additional confounding variables may play a role in the efficacy of soil microbial amendments. This study confirms the necessity of more in-depth validation requirements for the formulations of soil microbial amendments before delivery to the agricultural market in order to leverage their benefits for the producers, the consumers, and the environment.

Indexed as

Bacterial Physiological PhenomenaMicrobiotaRhizosphereBacteriaMycorrhizaeSoil MicrobiologySolanum lycopersicumYeastsBiofertilizerBiostimulantMicrobial amendmentSoil microbiome

Identifiers

PMID32144464
OpenAlexW3009838051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.