Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35935223›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

Soil properties, rhizosphere bacterial community, and plant performance respond differently to fumigation and bioagent treatment in continuous cropping fields.

Jing Xiong, Shuguang Peng, Yongjun Liu, Huaqun Yin, Lei Zhou, Zhicheng Zhou, Ge Tan, Yabing Gu, Hetian Zhang, Jingyi Huang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Characterization ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jing XiongSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Shuguang PengTobacco Research Institute of Hunan Province, Changsha, China.
Yongjun LiuTobacco Research Institute of Hunan Province, Changsha, China.
Huaqun YinSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Lei ZhouBeijing Research Institute of Chemical Engineering and Metallurgy, Beijing, China.
Zhicheng ZhouTobacco Research Institute of Hunan Province, Changsha, China.
Ge TanSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yabing GuSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Hetian ZhangSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jingyi HuangSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Delong MengSchool of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Central South University · CNTobacco Research Institute · CNBeijing General Research Institute of Mining and Metallurgy · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous cropping barriers lead to huge agriculture production losses, and fumigation and biological agents are developed to alleviate the barriers. However, there is a lack of literature on the differences between strong chemical fumigant treatment and moderate biological agent treatment. In this study, we investigated those differences and attempted to establish the links between soil properties, rhizosphere microbial community, and plant performance in both fumigation- and bioagent-treated fields. The results showed that the fumigation had a stronger effect on both soil functional microbes, i.e., ammonia oxidizers and soil-borne bacterial pathogens, and therefore, led to a significant change in soil properties, higher fertilizer efficiency, lower disease infections, and improved plant growth, compared with untreated control fields. Biological treatment caused less changes to soil properties, rhizosphere bacterial community, and plant physiology. Correlation and modeling analyses revealed that the bioagent effect was mainly direct, whereas fumigation resulted in indirect effects on alleviating cropping barriers. A possible explanation would be the reconstruction of the soil microbial community by the fumigation process, which would subsequently lead to changes in soil characteristics and plant performance, resulting in the effective alleviation of continuous cropping barriers.

Indexed as

bioagents treatmentcontinuous cropping barriersfumigationplant performancerhizosphere bacterial community

Identifiers

PMID35935223
PMCPMC9354655
OpenAlexW4286717211

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.