Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32242082›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2020

Recovery of fen peatland microbiomes and predicted functional profiles after rewetting.

Willem-Jan Emsens, Rudy van Diggelen, Camiel J S Aggenbach, Tomáš Cajthaml, Jan Frouz, Agata Klimkowska, Wiktor Kotowski, Lukasz Kozub, Yvonne Liczner, Elke Seeber and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

15 authors.

Willem-Jan EmsensEcosystem Management Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium. willem-jan.emsens@uantwerpen.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2667-237X
Rudy van DiggelenEcosystem Management Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8053-945X
Camiel J S AggenbachEcosystem Management Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Tomáš CajthamlCharles University, Institute for Environmental Studies, Benátská 2, CZ-128282801, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jan FrouzCharles University, Institute for Environmental Studies, Benátská 2, CZ-128282801, Prague, Czech Republic.
Agata KlimkowskaEcosystem Management Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Wiktor KotowskiDepartment of Plant Ecology and Environmental Conservation, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Centre for Biological and Chemical Sciences, ul. Żwirki i Wigury 101, 02-089, Warszawa, Poland.
Lukasz KozubDepartment of Plant Ecology and Environmental Conservation, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Centre for Biological and Chemical Sciences, ul. Żwirki i Wigury 101, 02-089, Warszawa, Poland.
Yvonne LicznerEcosystem Management Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.
Elke SeeberInstitute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Soldmannstr. 15, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.
Hanna SilvennoinenSoil Quality and Climate Change, Division for Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Hogskoleveien 7, 1430, Aas, Norway.
Franziska TannebergerInstitute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, partner in the Greifswald Mire Centre, Soldmannstr. 15, 17489, Greifswald, Germany.
Jakub VicenaCharles University, Institute for Environmental Studies, Benátská 2, CZ-128282801, Prague, Czech Republic.
Mateusz WilkDepartment of Plant Ecology and Environmental Conservation, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Centre for Biological and Chemical Sciences, ul. Żwirki i Wigury 101, 02-089, Warszawa, Poland.
Erik VerbruggenPlants and Ecosystems Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7015-1515

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many of the world's peatlands have been affected by water table drawdown and subsequent loss of organic matter. Rewetting has been proposed as a measure to restore peatland functioning and to halt carbon loss, but its effectiveness is subject to debate. An important prerequisite for peatland recovery is a return of typical microbial communities, which drive key processes. To evaluate the effect of rewetting, we investigated 13 fen peatland areas across a wide (>1500 km) longitudinal gradient in Europe, in which we compared microbial communities between drained, undrained, and rewetted sites. There was a clear difference in microbial communities between drained and undrained fens, regardless of location. Community recovery upon rewetting was substantial in the majority of sites, and predictive functional profiling suggested a concomitant recovery of biogeochemical peatland functioning. However, communities in rewetted sites were only similar to those of undrained sites when soil organic matter quality (as expressed by cellulose fractions) and quantity were still sufficiently high. We estimate that a minimum organic matter content of ca. 70% is required to enable microbial recovery. We conclude that peatland recovery after rewetting is conditional on the level of drainage-induced degradation: severely altered physicochemical peat properties may preclude complete recovery for decades.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaWetlandsCarbonEuropeSoilCarbonSoil

Identifiers

PMID32242082
PMCPMC7305128

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.