ArticleEnvironmental microbiome2026
Microbial succession from nursery to vineyard highlights the role of beneficial and pathogenic microbes in young vineyard yield.
Article in Environmental microbiome, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe grapevine microbiome plays a central role in shaping vineyard performance, yet the influence of nursery inherited microbes on vineyard establishment and early productivity remains poorly understood. Our goals were to study the endosphere and rhizosphere microbiome succession as grapevine transition from nursery to vineyard and determine in what capacity the endogenous microbiome from the nursery shapes vineyard outcomes.
resultsWe profiled, using amplicon-based sequencing, the fungal and bacterial communities across five bio-compartments (scion graft union, rootstock graft union, crown, roots, and rhizosphere) from two sets of grafted vines (Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay grafted on 1103P rootstock) originating from two nurseries and followed their succession over three years after planting in a commercial vineyard. Nurseries produced vines with distinct endospheric microbiomes that converged overtime but that remained significantly different after three years. Microbial turnover occurred at a much faster pace in belowground (root and rhizosphere) compared to trunk compartments post-planting, with 15% of the initial microbes persisting in three-year-old vineyard. The fungal pathobiome partially inherited from nurseries and associated with vascular diseases of the trunk and root was also clearly distinct after three years. Yet, we did not observe typical disease symptoms development or vine death as we would expect, likely because vines were not under stress during the experimental timeframe. Vineyard yield was highly variable among clonal vines, and statistical modeling revealed that a narrow subset of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) explained a large portion of this variance. Regression models using the top ten high-impact ASVs accounted for 51% and 60% of yield variation in trunk and belowground compartments, respectively. Notably, 16 of the 19 yield-associated ASVs originated from nurseries, underscoring the long-term influence of nursery-derived microbes on vineyard success.
conclusionThese findings highlight the dual role of beneficial and pathogenic nursery microbiota in shaping grapevine performance. It also suggests that the nursery life stage could be leveraged to engineer the grapevine microbiome and improve vineyard resilience.
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.