Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116040›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of botany2025

Soil biome variation of Lupinus nipomensis in wet-cool vs. dry-warm microhabitats and greenhouse.

Peter T Nguyen, Justin C Luong, Van Wishingrad, Lisa Stratton, Michael E Loik, Rachel S Meyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Peter T NguyenDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, 95064, CA, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-8598-0592
Justin C LuongDepartment of Forestry, Fire & Rangeland Management, California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, Arcata, 95521, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2118-4788
Van WishingradDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, 95064, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6256-4018
Lisa StrattonVernon and Mary Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration, University of California, Santa Barbara, 93105, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5426-2220
Michael E LoikDepartment of Environmental Studies, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, 95064, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0847-6778
Rachel S MeyerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, 95064, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4907-5797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseEnvironmental DNA (eDNA) can be used to determine the composition of the soil biome community, revealing beneficial and antagonistic microbes and invertebrates associated with plants. eDNA analyses can complement traditional soil community studies, offering more comprehensive information for conservation practitioners. Studies are also needed to examine differences between field and greenhouse soil biomes because greenhouse-grown plants are often transplanted in the field during restoration efforts.

methodsWe used eDNA multilocus metabarcoding to test how the soil biome of the federally and state-endangered species, Lupinus nipomensis, differed between wet-cool and dry-warm microhabitats. At Arroyo Grande, California, 20 experimental plots were sampled, representing a factorial combination of wet-cool vs. dry-warm soil and plots that did or did not contain L. nipomensis. In a simultaneous greenhouse study, L. nipomensis was grown in drought and well-watered conditions to compare soil communities between field and greenhouse.

resultsA diversity of carbon-cycling microorganisms but not nitrogen-fixers were overrepresented in the field, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria were overrepresented in some greenhouse treatments. The microbial communities in the field soils were more species-rich and evenly distributed than in greenhouse communities. In field plots, microhabitats significantly influenced community beta diversity, while field plots with or without L. nipomensis had no significant differences in alpha or beta diversity.

conclusionsOur study shows the utility of eDNA soil analysis in elucidating soil biome community differences for conservation and highlights the influence of plant microhabitats on soil microbe associations.

Indexed as

DNA, EnvironmentalEcosystemLupinusSoilSoil MicrobiologyCaliforniaDNA, EnvironmentalSoildrought toleranceecological reserveendangered speciesFabaceaegreenhousemetabarcodingmicroclimateplant conservationplant‐microbe interactions

Identifiers

PMID40116040
PMCPMC12012791

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.