Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37901804›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

Organic vs. conventional: impact of cultivation treatments on the soil microbiota in the vineyard.

Andrea Colautti, Marcello Civilini, Marco Contin, Emilio Celotti, Lucilla Iacumin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Counteracting Grey Mould (Microorganisms · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Andrea ColauttiDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Marcello CiviliniDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Marco ContinDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Emilio CelottiDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Lucilla IacuminDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Science, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two vineyard management practices on the soil and its associated microbiota. The experiments were conducted in two adjacent plots, one completely organically managed and the other conventionally managed in terms of phytosanitary treatments but fertilized with organic amendments. The chemical soil analyses were correlated to the prokaryotic and fungal communities, which were studied using the metabarcoding technique. The main difference between the two treatments was a significantly higher amount of Cu in the organic managed vineyard soil, while conventional managed soil presented higher concentration of Na and Mg and was also associated with higher pH values. Despite these differences, no significant diversities were observed on soil biodiversity and microbial composition considering alpha and beta diversity metrics. However, the percentages of some phyla analyzed individually differed significantly between the two managements. Analyzing the metabolisms of these phyla, it was discovered an increment of species correlated to soils with higher organic matter content or land not used for agricultural purposes in the organic treated soil. The findings indicate that, despite the use of copper-based phytosanitary products, there was no degradation and loss of biodiversity in the organic soil microbial population compared to conventional management with the same type of fertilization, and the observed microbial population was more similar to that of natural soils.

Indexed as

environmentmicrobiotaorganicsoilvineyardwine

Identifiers

PMID37901804
PMCPMC10602642

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.