Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37024947›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2023

Wildlife gut microbiomes of sympatric generalist species respond differently to anthropogenic landscape disturbances.

Alexander Christoph Heni, Gloria Fackelmann, Georg Eibner, Swetlana Kreinert, Julian Schmid, Nina Isabell Schwensow, Jonas Wiegand, Kerstin Wilhelm, Simone Sommer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gut Microbiome Profiling of the Endangered Southern Greater Glider (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander Christoph HeniInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany. alexander.heni@gmail.com.
Gloria FackelmannInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Georg EibnerInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Swetlana KreinertInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Julian SchmidInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Nina Isabell SchwensowInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Jonas WiegandInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Kerstin WilhelmInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
Simone SommerInstitute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, 89081, Ulm, Germany. simone.sommer@uni-ulm.de.
Universität Ulm · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DESmithsonian Tropical Research Institute · PA

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SPP 1596 SO 428/ 9-1, 9-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman encroachment into nature and the accompanying environmental changes are a big concern for wildlife biodiversity and health. While changes on the macroecological scale, i.e. species community and abundance pattern, are well documented, impacts on the microecological scale, such as the host's microbial community, remain understudied. Particularly, it is unclear if impacts of anthropogenic landscape modification on wildlife gut microbiomes are species-specific. Of special interest are sympatric, generalist species, assumed to be more resilient to environmental changes and which often are well-known pathogen reservoirs and drivers of spill-over events. Here, we analyzed the gut microbiome of three such sympatric, generalist species, one rodent (Proechimys semispinosus) and two marsupials (Didelphis marsupialis and Philander opossum), captured in 28 study sites in four different landscapes in Panama characterized by different degrees of anthropogenic disturbance.

resultsOur results show species-specific gut microbial responses to the same landscape disturbances. The gut microbiome of P. semispinosus was less diverse and more heterogeneous in landscapes with close contact with humans, where it contained bacterial taxa associated with humans, their domesticated animals, and potential pathogens. The gut microbiome of D. marsupialis showed similar patterns, but only in the most disturbed landscape. P. opossum, in contrast, showed little gut microbial changes, however, this species' absence in the most fragmented landscapes indicates its sensitivity to long-term isolation.

conclusionThese results demonstrate that wildlife gut microbiomes even in generalist species with a large ecological plasticity are impacted by human encroachment into nature, but differ in resilience which can have critical implications on conservation efforts and One Health strategies.

Indexed as

Anthropogenic disturbanceDidelphis marsupialisGut microbiomeLandscape ecologyPanamaPhilander opossumPhylogeneticsProechimys semispinosus

Identifiers

PMID37024947
PMCPMC10080760
OpenAlexW4362665100

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.