ArticleScientific reports2026
Mechanisms underlying rhizosheath dynamics in Kengyilia hirsuta in response to alternating drought and rewatering.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Under increasing frequency of extreme climate events, plant adaptation to alternating drought-rewatering stress is critical. Kengyilia hirsuta, a pioneer forage grass in alpine desert ecosystems, relies on rhizosheath formation for drought resistance. This study conducted indoor pot experiments with six water treatments: three drought-rewatering cycles (W1-W3, re‑watered to 10%, 25%, and 40% of field capacity, FC) and three sustained drought levels (W4-W6, maintained at 10%, 25%, and 40% FC). Root architecture, biomass allocation, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) colonization, and rhizosheath formation were examined over three successive 7‑day periods (T1-T3). Results revealed dynamic responses of rhizosheath accumulation to water regimes: maintained 25% FC (W5) significantly promoted rhizosheath biomass, maintained 40% FC (W6) enhanced early‑stage development, and re‑watering to 10% FC (W1) boosted later‑stage formation. AMF colonization increased progressively, with total colonization rising from 41.51% at T1 (day 7) to 61.40% at T3 (day 21). The W5 treatment consistently exhibited the highest vesicle, arbuscule, and hyphal colonization, along with increased soil spore density and hyphal density by T3. Root morphological traits-including tip number, volume, hair length, and hair density-also peaked under W5. Structural equation modelling identified AMF colonization (total effect: -0.90) and root hair traits (total effect: +0.80) as pivotal regulators of rhizosheath formation. This negative total effect of AMF colonization does not indicate overall inhibition, but rather reflects the feedback regulation intensity mediated by microbial competition and the carbon allocation trade-off within the plant-fungal symbiosis under resource-limited conditions. These factors interact through biomass allocation, root architecture, and soil microenvironment, forming a multidimensional adaptive network. These findings elucidate the ecophysiological mechanisms of plant-AMF collaboration in rhizosheath formation under water fluctuation, supporting the selection of stress‑tolerant grasses for restoring desertified grasslands.
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.