Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33831034›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Soil bacterial communities and their associated functions for forest restoration on a limestone mine in northern Thailand.

Chakriya Sansupa, Witoon Purahong, Tesfaye Wubet, Pimonrat Tiansawat, Wasu Pathom-Aree, Neung Teaumroong, Panuwan Chantawannakul, François Buscot, Stephen Elliott, Terd Disayathanoowat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The framework species method: harnessing natural regeneration to restore tropical forest ecosystems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Chakriya SansupaDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Witoon PurahongDepartment of Soil Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4113-6428
Tesfaye WubetDepartment of Community Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Pimonrat TiansawatDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Wasu Pathom-AreeDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Neung TeaumroongSchool of Biotechnology, Institute of Agricultural Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Panuwan ChantawannakulDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
François BuscotDepartment of Soil Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Stephen ElliottDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Terd DisayathanoowatDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-6416-2266

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opencast mining removes topsoil and associated bacterial communities that play crucial roles in soil ecosystem functioning. Understanding the community composition and functioning of these organisms may lead to improve mine-rehabilitation practices. We used a culture-dependent method, combined with Illumina sequencing, to compare the taxonomic richness and composition of living bacterial communities in opencast mine substrates and young mine-rehabilitation plots, with those of soil in adjacent remnant forest at a limestone mine in northern Thailand. We further investigated the effects of soil physico-chemical factors and ground-flora cover on the same. Although, loosened subsoil, brought in to initiate rehabilitation, improved water retention and facilitated plant re-establishment, it did not increase the population density of living microbes substantially within 9 months. Planted trees and sparse ground flora in young rehabilitation plots had not ameliorated the micro-habitat enough to change the taxonomic composition of the soil bacteria compared with non-rehabilitated mine sites. Viable microbes were significantly more abundant in forest soil than in mine substrates. The living bacterial community composition differed significantly, between the forest plots and both the mine and rehabilitation plots. Proteobacteria dominated in forest soil, whereas Firmicutes dominated in samples from both mine and rehabilitation plots. Although, several bacterial taxa could survive in the mine substrate, soil ecosystem functions were greatly reduced. Bacteria, capable of chitinolysis, aromatic compound degradation, ammonification and nitrate reduction were all absent or rare in the mine substrate. Functional redundancy of the bacterial communities in both mine substrate and young mine-rehabilitation soil was substantially reduced, compared with that of forest soil. Promoting the recovery of microbial biomass and functional diversity, early during mine rehabilitation, is recommended, to accelerate soil ecosystem restoration and support vegetation recovery. Moreover, if inoculation is included in mine rehabilitation programs, the genera: Bacillus, Streptomyces and Arthrobacter are likely to be of particular interest, since these genera can be cultivated easily and this study showed that they can survive under the extreme conditions that prevail on opencast mines.

Indexed as

BacteriaCalcium CarbonateMicrobial ConsortiaMiningSoilSoil MicrobiologyTreesCalcium CarbonateSoil

Identifiers

PMID33831034
PMCPMC8031335

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.