Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37254222›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2023

What matters most? Assessment of within-canopy factors influencing the needle microbiome of the model conifer, Pinus radiata.

Sarah Addison, Charlotte Armstrong, Kathryn Wigley, Robin Hartley, Steven Wakelin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Heritability of theFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah AddisonScion, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, 3046, New Zealand.
Charlotte ArmstrongScion, P.O. Box 29237, Riccarton, Christchurch, 8440, New Zealand.
Kathryn WigleyScion, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, 3046, New Zealand.
Robin HartleyScion, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, 3046, New Zealand.
Steven WakelinScion, P.O. Box 29237, Riccarton, Christchurch, 8440, New Zealand. Steve.A.Wakelin@scionresearch.com.
Scion · NZ

Funding

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment The Tree Microbiome Project: at the root of climate proofing forests (C04X2002)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assembly and function of the phyllosphere microbiome is important to the overall fitness of plants and, thereby, the ecosystems they inhabit. Presently, model systems for tree phyllosphere microbiome studies are lacking, yet forests resilient to pests, diseases, and climate change are important to support a myriad of ecosystem services impacting from local to global levels. In this study, we extend the development of model microbiome systems for trees species, particularly coniferous gymnosperms, by undertaking a structured approach assessing the phyllosphere microbiome of Pinus radiata. Canopy sampling height was the single most important factor influencing both alpha- and beta-diversity of bacterial and fungal communities (p < 0.005). Bacterial and fungal phyllosphere microbiome richness was lowest in samples from the top of the canopy, subsequently increasing in the middle and then bottom canopy samples. These differences maybe driven by either by (1) exchange of microbiomes with the forest floor and soil with the lower foliage, (2) strong ecological filtering in the upper canopy via environmental exposure (e.g., UV), (3) canopy density, (4) or combinations of factors. Most taxa present in the top canopy were also present lower in tree; as such, sampling strategies focussing on lower canopy sampling should provide good overall phyllosphere microbiome coverage for the tree. The dominant phyllosphere bacteria were Alpha-proteobacteria (Rhizobiales and Sphingomonas) along with Acidobacteria Gp1. However, the P. radiata phyllosphere microbiome samples were fungal dominated. From the top canopy samples, Arthoniomycetes and Dothideomycetes were highly represented, with abundances of Arthoniomycetes then reducing in lower canopy samples whilst abundances of Ascomycota increased. The most abundant fungal taxa were Phaeococcomyces (14.4% of total reads) and Phaeotheca spp. (10.38%). A second-order effect of canopy sampling direction was evident in bacterial community composition (p = 0.01); these directional influences were not evident for fungal communities. However, sterilisation of needles did impact fungal community composition (p = 0.025), indicating potential for community differences in the endosphere versus leaf surface compartments. Needle age was only important in relation to bacterial communities, but was canopy height dependant (interaction p = 0.008). By building an understanding of the primary and secondary factors related to intra-canopy phyllosphere microbiome variation, we provide a sampling framework to either explicitly minimise or capture variation in needle collection to enable ongoing ecological studies targeted at inter-canopy or other experimental levels.

Indexed as

Community assemblyConiferMicrobiomeModel systemPhyllosphere

Identifiers

PMID37254222
PMCPMC10230745
OpenAlexW4378781673

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.