Home‐based microbial solution to boost crop growth in low‐fertility soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil microbial inoculants are expected to boost crop productivity under climate change and soil degradation. However, the efficiency of native vs commercialized microbial inoculants in soils with different fertility and impacts on resident microbial communities remain unclear. We investigated the differential plant growth responses to native synthetic microbial community (SynCom) and commercial plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). We quantified the microbial colonization and dynamic of niche structure to emphasize the home-field advantages for native microbial inoculants. A native SynCom of 21 bacterial strains, originating from three typical agricultural soils, conferred a special advantage in promoting maize growth under low-fertility conditions. The root : shoot ratio of fresh weight increased by 78-121% with SynCom but only 23-86% with PGPRs. This phenotype correlated with the potential robust colonization of SynCom and positive interactions with the resident community. Niche breadth analysis revealed that SynCom inoculation induced a neutral disturbance to the niche structure. However, even PGPRs failed to colonize the natural soil, they decreased niche breadth and increased niche overlap by 59.2-62.4%, exacerbating competition. These results suggest that the home-field advantage of native microbes may serve as a basis for engineering crop microbiomes to support food production in widely distributed poor soils.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".