ArticleMicrobial ecology2022
Ecological Dynamics and Co-occurrences Among Prokaryotes and Microeukaryotes in a Diatom Bloom Process in Xiangshan Bay, China.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structural and functional differences of gut microbiota inEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Contrasting Mechanisms Determine the Microeukaryotic and Syndiniales Community Assembly in a Eutrophic bay.Microbial ecology · 2023Article
- Seasonal variation in structure and function of gut microbiota inEcology and evolution · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diatom blooms can significantly affect the succession of microbial communities, yet little is known about the assembly processes and interactions of microbial communities during autumn bloom events. In this study, we investigated the ecological effects of an autumn diatom bloom on prokaryotic communities (PCCs) and microeukaryotic communities (MECs), focusing on their assembly processes and interactions. The PCCs were largely dominated by Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Cyanobacteria, and Flavobacteria, while the MECs primarily included Diatomea, Dinoflagellata, and Chlorophyta. The succession of both PCCs and MECs was mainly driven by this diatom bloom and environmental factors, such as nitrate and silicate. Null modeling revealed that homogeneous selection had a more pronounced impact on the structure of PCCs compared with that of MECs. In particular, drift and dispersal limitation cannot be neglected in the assembly processes of MECs. Co-occurrence network analyses showed that Litorimicrobium, Cercozoa, Marine Group I (MGI), Cryptomonadales, Myrionecta, and Micromonas may affect the bloom process. In summary, these results elucidated the complex, robust interactions and obviously distinct assembly mechanisms of PCCs and MECs during a diatom bloom and extend our current comprehension of the ecological mechanisms and microbial interactions involved in an autumn diatom bloom process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34665286What 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.