ArticleScientific reports2024
Short-term restoration practices change the bacterial community in degraded soil from the Brazilian semiarid.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Analysis of Vegetation and Microbiome Recovery in Abandoned Agricultural Fields.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Integrating belowground recovery into tropical forest restoration design and monitoring.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Plant growth promoting bacteria promote rice growth cultivated in two different sandy soils subjected distinct climates conditions.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2024Article
- Impact of mixed-species forest plantations on soil mycobiota community structure and diversity in the Congolese coastal plains.PloS one · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Land degradation by deforestation adversely impacts soil properties, and long-term restoration practices have been reported to potentially reverse these effects, particularly on soil microorganisms. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the short-term effects of restoration on the soil bacterial community in semiarid areas. This study evaluates the bacterial community in soils experiencing degradation (due to slash-and-burn deforestation) and restoration (utilizing stone cordons and revegetation), in comparison to a native soil in the Brazilian semiarid region. Three areas were selected: (a) under degradation; (b) undergoing short-term restoration; and (c) a native area, and the bacterial community was assessed using 16S rRNA sequencing on soil samples collected during both dry and rainy seasons. The dry and rainy seasons exhibited distinct bacterial patterns, and native sites differed from degraded and restoration sites. Chloroflexi and Proteobacteria phyla exhibited higher prevalence in degraded and restoration sites, respectively, while Acidobacteria and Actinobacteria were more abundant in sites undergoing restoration compared to degraded sites. Microbial connections varied across sites and seasons, with an increase in nodes observed in the native site during the dry season, more edges and positive connections in the restoration site, and a higher occurrence of negative connections in the degradation site during the rainy season. Niche occupancy analysis revealed that degradation favored specialists over generalists, whereas restoration exhibited a higher prevalence of generalists compared to native sites. Specifically, degraded sites showed a higher abundance of specialists in contrast to restoration sites. This study reveals that land degradation impacts the soil bacterial community, leading to differences between native and degraded sites. Restoring the soil over a short period alters the status of the bacterial community in degraded soil, fostering an increase in generalist microbes that contribute to enhanced soil stability.
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.