Soil and Phytomicrobiome for Plant Disease Suppression and Management under Climate Change: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phytomicrobiome plays a crucial role in soil and ecosystem health, encompassing both beneficial members providing critical ecosystem goods and services and pathogens threatening food safety and security. The potential benefits of harnessing the power of the phytomicrobiome for plant disease suppression and management are indisputable and of interest in agriculture but also in forestry and landscaping. Indeed, plant diseases can be mitigated by in situ manipulations of resident microorganisms through agronomic practices (such as minimum tillage, crop rotation, cover cropping, organic mulching, etc.) as well as by applying microbial inoculants. However, numerous challenges, such as the lack of standardized methods for microbiome analysis and the difficulty in translating research findings into practical applications are at stake. Moreover, climate change is affecting the distribution, abundance, and virulence of many plant pathogens, while also altering the phytomicrobiome functioning, further compounding disease management strategies. Here, we will first review literature demonstrating how agricultural practices have been found effective in promoting soil health and enhancing disease suppressiveness and mitigation through a shift of the phytomicrobiome. Challenges and barriers to the identification and use of the phytomicrobiome for plant disease management will then be discussed before focusing on the potential impacts of climate change on the phytomicrobiome functioning and disease outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".