ArticlePest management science2026
Differential effects of three nematicides on soil biodiversity in intensive vegetable cultivation systems.
Article in Pest management science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBalancing agricultural productivity with environmental sustainability is a major challenge, highlighting the critical role of soil health in enhancing agroecosystem resilience against soil-borne diseases. This study investigates the differential effects of three nematicides, Fluazaindolizine, Fluopyram, and Metam sodium, on soil prokaryotic, fungal, and nematode communities, as well as the ecosystem services they provide within intensive vegetable cultivation systems.
resultsProkaryotic diversity remained stable across all treatments and sampling periods throughout the crop cycle, whereas fungal diversity was more sensitive to nematicide application. Both Metam sodium and Fluopyram significantly reduced fungal species richness and diversity, while Fluazaindolizine exhibited only transient effects. Distinct prokaryotic and fungal biomarkers were identified for each nematicide, indicating treatment-specific shifts in soil microbiomes. Fluazaindolizine promoted prokaryotic functions related to chitinolysis and hydrocarbon degradation, whereas Metam sodium and Fluopyram partially suppressed fungal pathways involved in organic matter degradation, compared to Fluazaindolizine and untreated controls. Fluazaindolizine was less disruptive to soil functions involving fungi. Metam sodium exerted the most pronounced reduction in nematode abundance and diversity, followed by Fluopyram and Fluazaindolizine.
conclusionFluazaindolizine is a less aggressive alternative for maintaining soil biodiversity compared to Metam sodium and Fluopyram, both of which have more substantial and lasting impacts on soil fungal communities. These findings underscore the necessity of considering the broader ecological consequences of nematicide use in agricultural practices. © 2026 Society of Chemical Industry.
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.