ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2022
Application of plant-soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Six Rotation Years Drive Dynamic Shifts in Agronomic Traits, Photosynthesis, and Tuber Metabolomics ofMetabolites · 2026Article
- Genotype-Dependent Soil Legacy of Woodland Strawberry (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Selecting suitable predecessors: Ecosystem services from cover crops to reduce tillage and fertilizer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Soil Microbial Dynamics in Regenerative Agriculture Systems: A Data-Driven Synthesis for Soil Health, Pest Suppression, and Yield Sustainability in the Western Canadian Prairies.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Functional team selection as a framework for local adaptation in plants and their belowground microbiomes.The ISME journal · 2025Review
- Soil microbial community composition by crop type under rotation diversification.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Evaluating total nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in a watershed impacted by diverse anthropic activities in a developing country.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of crop rotation systems: the impact of ginger (Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Effects of Maize-Crop Rotation on Soil Physicochemical Properties, Enzyme Activities, Microbial Biomass and Microbial Community Structure in Southwest China.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- The Plant Growth-Promoting Potential of Halotolerant Bacteria Is Not Phylogenetically Determined: Evidence from TwoMicroorganisms · 2023Article
- Dynamic of the Soil Microbiota in Short-Term Crop Rotation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Application of plant-soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant-soil feedback (PSF) can be a major driver of plant performance in communities, and this concept can be used in selecting crop rotation sequences to maximize agricultural yields. Potential benefits of using PSF in this context include nutrient use optimization, pathogen reduction, and enhancement of mutualisms between crops and microbes. Yet the contributions of these combined mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we investigated the relative contributions of these mechanisms using five major crops commonly cultivated in rotation (alfalfa, canola, maize, soybean, and wheat) under controlled conditions. We trained soil by growing each of the five crops in a "training phase," and then reciprocally planted the five crops in the trained soils in a "feedback phase." To tease out soil biota from nutrient effects, we established three treatments: "control" (trained unsterilized soil used in the feedback phases), "biota" (sterilized soil in the feedback phase inoculated with soil biota from the control treatment after the training phase), and "nutrient" (sterilized soils in both phases). Plant-soil feedback for each crop was calculated by comparing the total biomass of each crop grown in soils trained by each of the four other crops (i.e., in rotation) against total biomass in self-trained soil (i.e., monocropping). We found that PSF values varied among crop combinations in all the treatments, but such variation was the greatest in the nutrient treatment. Overall, soil biota feedback tended to be lower, whereas nutrient feedback tended to be greater compared to the unsterilized control soil, suggesting that effects of antagonistic biota outweighed those of beneficial microbes in the biota treatment, and that plants optimized nutrient uptake when the soil microbiome was absent in the nutrient treatment. Furthermore, soils in the nutrient treatment trained by the legume crops (alfalfa and soybean) tended to provide the greatest positive feedback, emphasizing the important legacy of N
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.