ArticleFrontiers in microbiomes2024
Utilizing symbiotic relationships and assisted migration in restoration to cope with multiple stressors, and the legacy of invasive species.
Article in Frontiers in microbiomes, 2024. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Climate change has increased the need for forest restoration, but low planting success and limited availability of planting materials hamper these efforts. Invasive plants and their soil legacies can further reduce restoration success. Thus, strategies that optimize restoration are crucial. Assisted migration and inoculation with native microbial symbiont communities have great potential to increase restoration success. However, assisted migrants can still show reduced survival compared to local provenances depending on transfer distance. Inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi, effective if well-matched to plants and site conditions, can have neutral to negative results with poor pairings. Few studies have examined the interaction between these two strategies in realistic field environments where native plants experience the combined effects of soil legacies left by invasive plants and the drought conditions that result from a warming, drying climate. Methods: We planted two ecotypes (local climate and warmer climate) of Results: Four main results emerged. 1) First year survival in soil legacies left behind after tamarisk invasion and removal was less than one tenth of survival in soil without a tamarisk legacy. 2) Actively restoring soil communities after tamarisk removal tripled first year cottonwood survival for both ecotypes, but only improved survival of the warmer, assisted migrant ecotype trees in year two. 3) Actively restoring soil communities in areas without a tamarisk history reduced first year survival for both ecotypes, but improved survival of the warmer, assisted migrant ecotype trees in year two. 4) By the second year, inoculated assisted migrants survived at five times the rate of inoculated trees from the local ecotype. Discussion: Results emphasize the detrimental effects of soil legacies left after tamarisk invasion and removal, the efficacy of assisted migration and restoring soil communities alongside plants, and the need to thoughtfully optimize pairings between plants, fungi, and site conditions.
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.