Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Crop rotational diversity increases disease suppressive capacity of soil microbiomes

Open access
Peralta, Ariane L., Sun, Yanmei, McDaniel, Marshall D., Lennon, Jay T.·2018·Ecosphere
DOI 10.1002/ecs2.2235
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Microbiomes can aid in the protection of hosts from infection and disease, but the mechanisms underpinning these functions in complex environmental systems remain unresolved. Soils contain microbiomes that influence plant performance, including their susceptibility to disease. For example, some soil microorganisms produce antimicrobial compounds that suppress the growth of plant pathogens, which can provide benefits for sustainable agricultural management. Evidence shows that crop rotations increase soil fertility and tend to promote microbial diversity, and it has been hypothesized that crop rotations can enhance disease suppressive capacity, either through the influence of plant diversity impacting soil bacterial composition or through the increased abundance of disease suppressive microorganisms. In this study, we used a long‐term field experiment to test the effects of crop diversity through time (i.e., rotations) on soil microbial diversity and disease suppressive capacity. We sampled soil from seven treatments along a crop diversity gradient (from monoculture to five crop species rotation) and a spring fallow (non‐crop) treatment to examine crop diversity influence on soil microbiomes including bacteria that are capable of producing antifungal compounds. Crop diversity significantly influenced bacterial community composition, where the most diverse cropping systems with cover crops and fallow differed from bacterial communities in the 1–3 crop species diversity treatments. While soil bacterial diversity was about 4% lower in the most diverse crop rotation (corn–soybean–wheat + 2 cover crops) compared to monoculture corn, crop diversity increased disease suppressive functional group prnD gene abundance in the more diverse rotation by about 9% compared to monocultures. In addition, disease suppressive potential was significantly diminished in the (non‐crop) fallow treatment compared to the most diverse crop rotation treatments. The composition of the microbial community could be more important than diversity to disease suppressive function in our study. Identifying patterns in microbial diversity and ecosystem function relationships can provide insight into microbiome management, which will require manipulating soil nutrients and resources mediated through plant diversity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ecs2.2235

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Peralta, A. L., Sun, Y., McDaniel, M. D., & Lennon, J. T.
Venue
Ecosphere
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05
Volume
9
Issue
5
ISSN
2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/ecs2.2235
OpenAlex
W2803304541
Cited by
284
References
90
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.