Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34242435›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2022

Contrasting effects of soil microbial interactions on growth-defence relationships between early- and mid-successional plant communities.

Stefan Geisen, Robin Heinen, Elena Andreou, Teun van Lent, Freddy C Ten Hooven, Madhav P Thakur

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Adaptation ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Stefan GeisenDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, 6708PB, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0734-727X
Robin HeinenDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, 6708PB, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9852-1020
Elena AndreouDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, 6708PB, the Netherlands.
Teun van LentDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, 6708PB, the Netherlands.
Freddy C Ten HoovenDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, 6708PB, the Netherlands.
Madhav P ThakurDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, 6708PB, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9426-1313
Netherlands Institute of Ecology · NLUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants allocate resources to processes related to growth and enemy defence. Simultaneously, they interact with complex soil microbiomes that also affect plant performance. While the influence of individual microbial groups on single plants is increasingly studied, effects of microbial interactions on growth, defence and growth-defence relationships remain unknown, especially at the plant community level. We investigated how three microbial groups (bacteria, fungi, protists), alone and in full-factorial combinations, affect plant performance and potential growth-defence relationships by measuring phenolics composition in early- and mid-successional grass and forb communities in a glasshouse experiment. Microbial groups did not affect plant growth and only fungi increased defence compounds in early- and mid-successional forbs, while grasses were not affected. Shoot biomass-defence relationships were negatively correlated in most microbial treatments in early-successional forbs, but positively in several microbial treatments in mid-successional forbs. The growth-defence relationship was generally negative in early-successional but not in mid-successional grasses. The presence of different microbiomes commonly removed the observed growth-defence relationships. We conclude that soil microorganisms and their interactions can shift growth-defence relationships differentially for plant functional groups and the relationships vary between successional stages. Microbial interaction-induced growth-defence shifts might therefore underlie distinct plant strategies and fitness.

Indexed as

SoilSoil MicrobiologyFungiMicrobial InteractionsPlantsSoilbacteriafungigrowth-defence relationshipsplant-soil interactionsplant successionsprotistssoil microbiome

Identifiers

PMID34242435
PMCPMC9292498
OpenAlexW3182926788

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.