ArticlePloS one2021
Effects of different vegetable rotations on the rhizosphere bacterial community and tomato growth in a continuous tomato cropping substrate.
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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative metagenomics on community structure and diversity of rhizomicrobiome associated with monoculture and soybean precedent carrot.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Continuous cropping system altered soil microbial communities and nutrient cycles.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Yield and Rhizosphere Soil Environment of Greenhouse Zucchini in Response to Different Planting and Breeding Waste Composts.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Dynamic of the Soil Microbiota in Short-Term Crop Rotation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Response of soil microbial community diversity to continuous cucumber cropping in facilities along the Yellow River irrigation area.PloS one · 2023Article
- Chemical fertilizer reduction combined with bio-organic fertilizers increases cauliflower yieldFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, High throughput sequencing was used to analyze the effects of different vegetable rotations on the rhizosphere bacterial diversity and community structure in a substrate that was used for continuous tomato cropping (CK). The vegetable rotations tested were cabbage/tomato (B), kidney bean/tomato (D), and celery/tomato (Q). The results revealed that the substrate bacterial diversity and richness of each crop rotation were higher than those of CK. The highest bacterial diversity was found in the B substrate, followed by the Q and D substrates. Further comparison showed that the rhizosphere bacterial community structure of Q substrate was significantly different to that of CK. Compared with the CK, the Q substrate had a significantly higher relative abundance of several dominant microflora, such as Acidobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Firmicutes. Additionally, the Q rotation significantly increased the abundance of beneficial bacteria, such as Actinobacteria_unclassified and Anaerolineaceae_unclassified. A redundancy analysis showed that Most dominant bacteria correlated positively with the substrate pH, total N, and alkali-hydrolyzable N but negatively with the available P, available K, total P, total K, and organic matter contents and substrate EC. The substrates after crop rotation improved the growth and physiological condition of the subsequent tomato plants, among which those from the Q rotation performed the best. Therefore, celery rotation not only increased the richness and diversity of bacterial communities in the substrate but also significantly increased the richness of the beneficial bacterial communities, allowing better maintenance of the substrate microenvironment for the healthy growth of crops.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.