Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33420281›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

First reported quantitative microbiota in different livestock manures used as organic fertilizers in the Northeast of Thailand.

Lampet Wongsaroj, Ratmanee Chanabun, Naruemon Tunsakul, Pinidphon Prombutara, Somsak Panha, Naraporn Somboonna

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MaternalComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Effects of Abiotic Stress on Soil Microbiome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  14. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lampet WongsarojDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Ratmanee ChanabunProgram in Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture Technology, Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University, Sakon Nakhon, 47000, Thailand.
Naruemon TunsakulProgram in Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Pinidphon PrombutaraMicrobiome Research Unit for Probiotics in Food and Cosmetics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Somsak PanhaDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Naraporn SomboonnaDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. Naraporn.S@chula.ac.th.
Chulalongkorn University · THSakon Nakhon Rajabhat University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Northeastern Thailand relies on agriculture as a major economic activity, and has used high levels of agrochemicals due to low facility, and salty sandy soil. To support soil recovery and sustainable agriculture, local farmers have used organic fertilizers from farmed animal feces. However, knowledge about these animal fecal manures remains minimal restricting their optimal use. Specifically, while bacteria are important for soil and plant growth, an abundance and a diversity of bacterial composition in these animal fecal manures have not been reported to allow selection and adjustment for a more effective organic fertilizer. This study thereby utilized metagenomics combined with 16S rRNA gene quantitative PCR (qPCR) and sequencing to analyze quantitative microbiota profiles in association with nutrients (N, P, K), organic matters, and the other physiochemical properties, of the commonly used earthworm manure and other manures from livestock animals (including breed and feeding diet variations) in the region. Unlike the other manures, the earthworm manure demonstrated more favorable nutrient profiles and physiochemical properties for forming fertile soil. Despite low total microbial biomass, the microbiota were enriched with maximal OTUs and Chao richness, and no plant pathogenic bacteria were found based on the VFDB database. The microbial metabolic potentials supported functions to promote crop growth, such as C, N and P cyclings, xenobiotic degradation, and synthesis of bioactive compounds. Pearson's correlation analyses indicated that the quantitative microbiota of the earthworm manure were clustered in the same direction as N, and conductivity, salinity, and water content were essential to control the microbiota of animal manures.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBacteriaFecesFertilizersLivestockManureOligochaetaSoilThailandFertilizersManureSoil

Identifiers

PMID33420281
PMCPMC7794567
OpenAlexW3119264066

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.