ArticlePloS one2022
Effects of three regeneration methods on the growth and bacterial community diversity of Populus × euramericana.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances and Hotspots in Research on Verrucomicrobiota: Focus on Agroecosystems.Microbial ecology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Diversity analysis of endohyphal bacteria in oil-producing fungi inhabiting arid environments.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Irradiance level and elevation shape the soil microbiome communities of Coffea arabica L.Environmental microbiome · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To study the effects of different regeneration methods on the growth and bacterial community diversity of Populus × euramericana cv. '74/76' (poplar 107), we investigated the growth of poplar 107 trees under three regeneration methods in 2017 and 2020, and sequenced the 16S rDNA V5-V7 regions in stem endophytic, root endophytic, and rhizosphere soil bacteria present in samples from the three regeneration methods using the Illumina high-throughput sequencing platform. The growth analysis showed that stump grafting regeneration (ST) and stump sprouting regeneration (SP) presented similar tree height and diameter at breast height (DBH), which were significantly lower by planted seedling regeneration (CK). The high-throughput sequencing results showed that the rhizosphere soil bacteria appeared to be significantly more diverse and rich than the root and stem endophytic bacteria. Cluster analysis showed that the similarity of bacterial community structure among the rhizosphere soil, root, and stem was small. Thus, the three sample types showed significant differences in bacteria. While comparing the two years, 2020 was significantly more diverse and rich than 2017. With the increase in stand age, the abundance of Proteobacteria increased and the abundance of Acidobacteria decreased. Among the three regeneration methods, ST significantly increased the diversity of stem endophytic bacteria. Chthoniobacter was enriched in SP, which promoted the decomposition of organic matter, and more plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) were accumulated in the rhizosphere of SP and ST. The composition of the bacterial community was similar in the three regeneration methods, but the community composition was different. Regeneration and transformation of poplar plantations can be better carried out by stump grafting and stump sprouting.
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.