Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39075839›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Practical applications of soil microbiota to improve ecosystem restoration: current knowledge and future directions.

Shawn D Peddle, Riley J Hodgson, Ryan J Borrett, Stella Brachmann, Tarryn C Davies, Todd E Erickson, Craig Liddicoat, Miriam Muñoz-Rojas, Jake M Robinson, Carl D Watson and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Enhanced Endophytic Colonization of Flavobacterium Promotes Plant Resistance to Fusarium Wilt.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Wavyleaf basketgrass (mSphere · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Shawn D PeddleCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3464-3058
Riley J HodgsonCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8043-2473
Ryan J BorrettSoilsWest, Centre for Sustainable Farming Systems, Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8663-0844
Stella BrachmannUniversity of Waikato Te Whare Wananga o Waikato Gate 1, Knighton Road, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand.
Tarryn C DaviesCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0987-8018
Todd E EricksonDepartment of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Kings Park Science, Kattidj Close, Kings Park, Western Australia, 6005, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4537-0251
Craig LiddicoatCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4812-7524
Miriam Muñoz-RojasDepartment of Plant Biology and Ecology, University of Seville, C. San Fernando, Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9746-5191
Jake M RobinsonCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8108-3271
Carl D WatsonCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7721-2162
Siegfried L KraussDepartment of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Kings Park Science, Kattidj Close, Kings Park, Western Australia, 6005, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7280-6324
Martin F BreedCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7810-9696

Funding

Australian Research Council DP210101932Australian Research Council LP190100051Australian Research Council LP190100484New Zealand Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment UOWX2101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil microbiota are important components of healthy ecosystems. Greater consideration of soil microbiota in the restoration of biodiverse, functional, and resilient ecosystems is required to address the twin global crises of biodiversity decline and climate change. In this review, we discuss available and emerging practical applications of soil microbiota into (i) restoration planning, (ii) direct interventions for shaping soil biodiversity, and (iii) strategies for monitoring and predicting restoration trajectories. We show how better planning of restoration activities to account for soil microbiota can help improve progress towards restoration targets. We show how planning to embed soil microbiota experiments into restoration projects will permit a more rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of different restoration methods, especially when complemented by statistical modelling approaches that capitalise on existing data sets to improve causal understandings and prioritise research strategies where appropriate. In addition to recovering belowground microbiota, restoration strategies that include soil microbiota can improve the resilience of whole ecosystems. Fundamentally, restoration planning should identify appropriate reference target ecosystem attributes and - from the perspective of soil microbiota - comprehensibly consider potential physical, chemical and biological influences on recovery. We identify that inoculating ecologically appropriate soil microbiota into degraded environments can support a range of restoration interventions (e.g. targeted, broad-spectrum and cultured inoculations) with promising results. Such inoculations however are currently underutilised and knowledge gaps persist surrounding successful establishment in light of community dynamics, including priority effects and community coalescence. We show how the ecological trajectories of restoration sites can be assessed by characterising microbial diversity, composition, and functions in the soil. Ultimately, we highlight practical ways to apply the soil microbiota toolbox across the planning, intervention, and monitoring stages of ecosystem restoration and address persistent open questions at each stage. With continued collaborations between researchers and practitioners to address knowledge gaps, these approaches can improve current restoration practices and ecological outcomes.

Indexed as

EcosystemMicrobiotaSoil MicrobiologyConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental Restoration and Remediationecosystem restorationimproved ecological outcomespositive soil legacyrecovery trajectoryrestoration genomicsrestoration methods

Identifiers

PMID39075839
PMCPMC11718600

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.