Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38849504›Full record

SynthesisNature ecology & evolution2024

Meta-analysis reveals the effects of microbial inoculants on the biomass and diversity of soil microbial communities.

Chong Li, Xinli Chen, Zhaohui Jia, Lu Zhai, Bo Zhang, Uwe Grüters, Shilin Ma, Jing Qian, Xin Liu, Jinchi Zhang and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature ecology & evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Chong LiCo-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9330-5396
Xinli ChenDepartment of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0542-5959
Zhaohui JiaCo-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9564-9333
Lu ZhaiDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Bo ZhangDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Uwe GrütersInstitute of Plant Ecology, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Shilin MaCo-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1821-785X
Jing QianYangzhou China Grand Canal Museum, Yangzhou, China.
Xin LiuCo-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China. liuxinswc@njfu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8641-7170
Jinchi ZhangCo-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China. zhang8811@njfu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-7214
Christoph MüllerInstitute of Plant Ecology, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial inoculation involves transplanting microorganisms from their natural habitat to new plants or soils to improve plant performance, and it is being increasingly used in agriculture and ecological restoration. However, microbial inoculants can invade and alter the composition of native microbial communities; thus, a comprehensive analysis is urgently needed to understand the overall impact of microbial inoculants on the biomass, diversity, structure and network complexity of native communities. Here we provide a meta-analysis of 335 studies revealing a positive effect of microbial inoculants on soil microbial biomass. This positive effect was weakened by environmental stress and enhanced by the use of fertilizers and native inoculants. Although microbial inoculants did not alter microbial diversity, they induced major changes in the structure and bacterial composition of soil microbial communities, reducing the complexity of bacterial networks and increasing network stability. Finally, higher initial levels of soil nutrients amplified the positive impact of microbial inoculants on fungal biomass, actinobacterial biomass, microbial biomass carbon and microbial biomass nitrogen. Together, our results highlight the positive effects of microbial inoculants on soil microbial biomass, emphasizing the benefits of native inoculants and the important regulatory roles of soil nutrient levels and environmental stress.

Indexed as

BiomassMicrobiotaSoil MicrobiologyAgricultural InoculantsBacteriaBiodiversityFungiSoilSoil

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.