ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2025
Plant microbiome responses to bioinoculants and volatiles.
Article in Environmental microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating GERMs: how genotype, environment, and rhizosphere microbiome interactions underlie heat response in maize and sorghum.The New phytologist · 2026Article
- Volatile cues from pathogenic, mutualistic and saprotrophic fungi cause specific, fungus-dependent responses in poplar.Tree physiology · 2026Article
- Engineering Plant-Associated Microorganisms for Bioremediation and Sustainable Agriculture.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Exposure of Farmers and Spouses to Glyphosate in Morocco: Urinary Levels and Predictors of Exposure.Toxics · 2026Article
- Microbiome interventions combined with artificial humic acid treatments for restoring soil bacterial diversity.Sustainable microbiology · 2026Article
- Investigating GERMs: How Genotype, Environment, and Rhizosphere Microbiome interactions underlie heat response in maize and sorghum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increase in the adoption of biological solutions for plant production as a means of attaining sustainable agriculture. A detailed understanding of the influence of specific bioinoculants and their volatile metabolites on native soil and plant microbiomes can improve future microbiome management practices.
resultsHere, we examined the effect of bacterial inoculants and volatile compounds as individual and combined treatments on apple plant and soil microbiome. The study used specially designed microcosms that facilitated the separation of the different plant compartments. A compartment- and soil-specific effect of treatments on the native soil and plant microbiome was observed. The live bacterial inoculants as compared to their volatiles had a stronger effect on the plant and soil microbiome, particularly the root microbial community. The combined effect of bacterial inoculants was higher compared to volatiles (R
conclusionsAmong the examined treatments, inoculation with bacteria compared to volatile metabolites induced more significant shifts within the plant and soil microbiome. This observation has implications regarding the merits of applying living microorganisms. The findings highlight the potential of microbiome management approaches for enhancing microbiota functions.
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.