Paper · 2025 · Rhizosphere

Plant developmental stage, rather than inoculation with Hartmannibacter diazotrophicus, determines the composition of the bacterial, fungal, and protist microbiome in winter wheat

Julia Sacharow; David Rosado-Porto; Santiago Quiroga; et al.

4
claims
6
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for inoculation of seeds, soils, and plants is becoming increasingly important due to the environmental impact of extensive use of chemical treatments in plant production. In this study, we investigated the effects of seed inoculation with Hartmannibacter diazotrophicus E19 on the bacterial, fungal and protist (Cercozoa) microbiome of winter wheat. The results showed that the inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19 had no significant effect on the microbiome of roots, rhizosphere and in the bulk soil of winter wheat. Instead, the composition of the winter wheat microbiome appears to be more influenced by plant developmental stage and sampling material. Inoculation resulted only in minor effects, reflected by a limited number of ASVs showing positive or negative differential abundance compared to the controls like Chryseolinea , Symbiobacterium , Malbranchea , Hormiactis and Sandonidae. These findings confirm that the microbiome composition of winter wheat undergoes only minimal changes upon inoculation with H. diazotrophicus E19. • Field study on impact of H. diazotrophicus E19 seed inoculation. • H. diazotrophicus E19 inoculation had no significant impact on wheat microbiome. • Especially Cercozoa communities were also unaffected by the inoculation. • The microbiome is shaped by the sample type and sampling time. • Individual ASVs were still affected by inoculation.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed inoculation with H. diazotrophicus E19 had no significant effect on the microbiome of roots, rhizosphere and bulk soil of winter wheat

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19e1
Interactor
H. diazotrophicus E19Hartmannibacter diazotrophicuse1symbiont
Outcome
microbiome of roots, rhizosphere and in the bulk soile1
Direction
no significant effecte1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The results showed that the inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19 had no significant effect on the microbiome of roots, rhizosphere and in the bulk soil of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–581 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed inoculation with H. diazotrophicus E19 gave only minor effects, with a limited number of ASVs differentially abundant compared with controls

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19e1
Interactor
H. diazotrophicus E19Hartmannibacter diazotrophicuse1symbiont
Outcome
limited number of ASVs showing positive or negative differential abundancee2
Direction
positive or negativee2
Comparator
controlse2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The results showed that the inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19 had no significant effect on the microbiome of roots, rhizosphere and in the bulk soil of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–581 · show in text ↑
e2

“Inoculation resulted only in minor effects, reflected by a limited number of ASVs showing positive or negative differential abundance compared to the controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–879 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter wheat microbiome composition is more influenced by plant developmental stage and sampling material

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume3
Organ / stage
plant developmental stagee3
Outcome
composition of the winter wheat microbiomee3
Direction
more influencede3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“Instead, the composition of the winter wheat microbiome appears to be more influenced by plant developmental stage and sampling material”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 583–719 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed inoculation with H. diazotrophicus E19 did not affect Cercozoa communities of winter wheat

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19e1
Interactor
H. diazotrophicus E19Hartmannibacter diazotrophicuse1symbiont
Outcome
Cercozoa communitiese4
Direction
unaffectede4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The results showed that the inoculation of H. diazotrophicus E19 had no significant effect on the microbiome of roots, rhizosphere and in the bulk soil of winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–581 · show in text ↑
e4

“Especially Cercozoa communities were also unaffected by the inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1258–1329 · show in text ↑

inoculation · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

32 papers: 24 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

inoculation · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

65 papers: 58 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 58 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

61 papers more in this group

See all 65 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.