ArticleISME communications2024
Co-inoculations of bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi often drive additive plant growth responses.
Article in ISME communications, 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.
- Metabarcoding-based characterization of the boxwood root-zone soil microbiome.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Multi-meta-omics reveal unique symbiotic synchronization between ectomycorrhizal fungus and soil microbiome in Tricholoma matsutake habitat.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Standardizing experimental approaches to investigate interactions between bacteria and ectomycorrhizal fungi.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Higher-order microbial interactions revealed by comparative metabolic modeling of synthetic communities with varying species composition.ISME communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Controlled greenhouse studies have shown the numerous ways that soil microbes can impact plant growth and development. However, natural soil communities are highly complex, and plants interact with many bacterial and fungal taxa simultaneously. Due to logistical challenges associated with manipulating more complex microbiome communities, how microbial communities impact emergent patterns of plant growth therefore remains poorly understood. For instance, do the interactions between bacteria and fungi generally yield additive (i.e. sum of their parts) or nonadditive, higher order plant growth responses? Without this information, our ability to accurately predict plant responses to microbial inoculants is weakened. To address these issues, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the type (additive or higher-order, nonadditive interactions), frequency, direction (positive or negative), and strength that bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi (arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal) have on six phenotypic plant growth responses. Our results demonstrate that co-inoculations of bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi tend to have positive additive effects on many commonly reported plant responses. However, ectomycorrhizal plant shoot height responds positively and nonadditively to co-inoculations of bacteria and ectomycorrhizal fungi, and the strength of additive effects also differs between mycorrhizae type. These findings suggest that inferences from greenhouse studies likely scale to more complex field settings and that inoculating plants with diverse, beneficial microbes is a sound strategy to support plant growth.
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.