ArticleScientific reports2026
Differential enrichment of key bacterial taxa in the rhizosphere of naturally growing and artificially restored Kandelia obovata forests.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The structure of the soil bacterial community is crucial for maintaining ecosystem balance and facilitating material transformation in mangrove ecosystems. The large-scale destruction of mangroves directly impacts soil bacterial processes, potentially leading to ecosystem degradation. This study employed Illumina NovaSeq high-throughput sequencing to investigate the rhizosphere bacterial community of Kandelia obovata seedlings in both natural and artificially restored forests. Although alpha and beta diversity analyses revealed that the overall bacterial community structure was not significantly altered by artificial restoration, significant shifts in the abundance of specific bacterial genera were identified. A substantial proportion (86.1%-92.6%) of bacterial sequences remained unclassified at the genus level. Distinct dominant genera were observed across different groups: the well-grown artificial group (treat-k) was enriched with Sulfurovum, Actibacter, and Desulfatiglans (5.09%, 2.18%, and 1.82%, respectively), while the poorly-grown artificial group (treat-s) was characterized by Ignavibacterium, Prolixibacter, and Woeseia (2.10%, 1.21%, and 1.06%, respectively). The natural group was dominated by Woeseia, Desulfatiglans, and Halioglobus (1.56%, 1.53%, and 1.11%). Statistical analysis further confirmed that the abundance of several genera, including Ignavibacterium, Prolixibacter, and Haliangium differed significantly (p < 0.05) between the poorly-grown group (treat-s) and the better-grown groups (treat-k and natural). In conclusion, while artificial restoration did not restructure the rhizosphere bacterial community at a global level, it selectively shaped the microbial assemblage by enriching specific bacterial taxa, which might play a crucial role in determining the growth status of Kandelia obovata during restoration.
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.