Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33904129›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021

Sugarcane monoculture drives microbial community composition, activity and abundance of agricultural-related microorganisms.

Muhammad Tayyab, Ziqi Yang, Caifang Zhang, Waqar Islam, Wenxiong Lin, Hua Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Long-term continuous mono-cropping ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Muhammad TayyabKey Laboratory of Sugarcane Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Ziqi YangKey Laboratory of Sugarcane Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Caifang ZhangKey Laboratory of Sugarcane Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China.
Waqar IslamCollege of Geography, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, 350007, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2383-402X
Wenxiong LinCollege of Agriculture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China. lwx@fafu.edu.cn.
Hua ZhangKey Laboratory of Sugarcane Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, 350002, China. zhanghua4553@sina.com.
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University · CNFujian Normal University · CNMinistry of Agriculture · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sugarcane monoculture (SM) often leads to soil problems, like soil acidification, degradation, and soil-borne diseases, which ultimately pose a negative impact on agricultural productivity and sustainability. Understanding the change in microbial communities' composition, activities, and functional microbial taxa associated with the plant and soil under SM is unclear. Using multidisciplinary approaches such as Illumina sequencing, measurements of soil properties, and enzyme activities, we analyzed soil samples from three sugarcane fields with different monoculture histories (1-, 2-, and 4-year cultivation times, respectively). We observed that SM induced soil acidity and had adverse effects on soil fertility, i.e., soil organic matter (OM), total nitrogen (TN), total carbon (TC), and available potassium (AK), as well as enzyme activities indicative for carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen cycles. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis showed that SM time greatly affected soil attribute patterns. We observed strong correlation among soil enzymes activities and soil physiochemical properties (soil pH, OM, and TC). Alpha diversity analysis showed a varying response of the microbes to SM time. Bacterial diversity increased with increasing oligotrophs (e.g., Acidobacteria and Chloroflexi), while fungal diversity decreased with reducing copiotrophs (e.g., Ascomycota). β-Diversity analysis showed that SM time had a great influence on soil microbial structure and soil properties, which led to the changes in major components of microbial structure (soil pH, OM, TC, bacteria and soil pH; TC, fungi). Additionally, SM time significantly stimulated (four bacterial and ten fungal) and depleted (12 bacterial and three fungal) agriculturally and ecologically important microbial genera that were strongly and considerably correlated with soil characteristics (soil pH, OM, TC, and AK). In conclusion, SM induces soil acidity, reduces soil fertility, shifts microbial structure, and reduces its activity. Furthermore, most beneficial bacterial genera decreased significantly due to SM, while beneficial fungal genera showed a reverse trend. Therefore, mitigating soil acidity, improving soil fertility, and soil enzymatic activities, including improved microbial structure with beneficial service to plants and soil, can be an effective measure to develop a sustainable sugarcane cropping system.

Indexed as

AscomycotaMicrobiotaSaccharumAgricultureSoilSoil MicrobiologySoilLand degradationMonoculture obstacleSoil acidificationSoil fertilitySoil microbial diversity

Identifiers

PMID33904129
OpenAlexW3158129033

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.