Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32792675›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Responses of active soil microorganisms facing to a soil biostimulant input compared to plant legacy effects.

Eve Hellequin, Cécile Monard, Marion Chorin, Nathalie Le Bris, Virginie Daburon, Olivier Klarzynski, Françoise Binet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Belgian endive-derived biostimulant activity inFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eve HellequinUniversity of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution)-UMR 6553, 35000, Rennes, France. eve.hellequin@upmc.fr.
Cécile MonardUniversity of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution)-UMR 6553, 35000, Rennes, France.
Marion ChorinUniversity of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution)-UMR 6553, 35000, Rennes, France.
Nathalie Le BrisUniversity of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution)-UMR 6553, 35000, Rennes, France.
Virginie DaburonUniversity of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution)-UMR 6553, 35000, Rennes, France.
Olivier KlarzynskiBIO3G Company, 7 rue du Bourg-Neuf, 22230, Merdrignac, France.
Françoise BinetUniversity of Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution)-UMR 6553, 35000, Rennes, France. francoise.binet@univ-rennes1.fr.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FREcosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution · FRSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agriculture is changing to rely on agroecological practices that take into account biodiversity, and the ecological processes occurring in soils. The use of agricultural biostimulants has emerged as a valid alternative to chemicals to indirectly sustain plant growth and productivity. Certain BS have been shown to select and stimulate plant beneficial soil microorganisms. However, there is a lack of knowledge on the effects and way of action of the biostimulants operating on soil functioning as well as on the extent and dynamic of these effects. In this study we aimed to decipher the way of action of a seaweed and amino-acids based biostimulant intended to be applied on soil crop residues to increase their microbial mineralization and the further release of nutrients. By setting-up a two-phase experiment (soil plant-growing and soil incubation), our objectives were to (1) determine the effects of the soil biostimulant over time on the active soil bacteria and fungi and the consequences on the organic carbon mineralization in bare soils, and (2) assess the biostimulant effects on soil microorganisms relatively to plant legacy effects in planted soils. We demonstrated that the soil biostimulant had a delayed effect on the active soil microorganisms and activated both plant growth promoting bacteria and saprophytes microorganisms at the medium-term of 49 days. However, the changes in the abundances of active microbial decomposers were not associated to a higher mineralization rate of organic carbon derived from soil and/or litter. The present study assessed the biostimulant beneficial effect on active soil microbial communities as similar as or even higher than the legacy effects of either A. thaliana or T. aestivum plants. We specifically showed that the biostimulant increased the active fungal richness to a higher extent than observed in soils that previously grew the two plants tested.

Indexed as

AgricultureArabidopsisBacteriaBiodiversityBiological FactorsFungiMicrobiotaPlant DevelopmentSoilSoil MicrobiologyTriticumBiological FactorsSoil

Identifiers

PMID32792675
PMCPMC7426422
OpenAlexW3048422635

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.