Research Trend and Vein of Forest Soil Microorganisms:Visual Analysis Based on Citespace

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0684

Abstract

Abstract:

To understand the development history, current situation and research frontier of forest soil microorganisms, this paper used Citespace to analyze the development, research hotspots and related contents of forest soil microorganisms from 1990 to 2022 based on WOS core database. The results showed that forest microbial research had been led by the United States since 1990, and had been gradually overtaken by China since 2018. The Chinese Academy of Sciences, as the institution with the largest number of papers published in the world, had been cited with a frequency of 22.45. Keyword analysis found that the research of forest soil microorganisms was related to nitrogen, and the heat kept from 1990 to 2007. At the same time, the research on coniferous forests broke out after 1992, and with the passage of time and the progress of molecular biology and genetics, after 2013, the research gradually began to be linked to software analysis and computer prediction, and the morphological characteristics, diversity and function of microbial communities were deeply dissected and made results more accurate and convincing. The top five in the co-citation analysis were ectomycorrhizal fungi, soil respiration, bacterial community, increased carbon dioxide concentration and the Loess Plateau of China, which indicated that these directions were particularly important for the study of forest soil microorganisms. The Loess Plateau was a typical area of China, and its related research might be the focus of attention in China in the future. This article only made a rough summary and analysis of the direction of forest soil microorganisms.

Key words: Citespace, forest, soil microorganism, visualized analysis

ZHANG Jianlang, LUO Lianhe, MAO Jianhui, HUO Chunyu, WANG Zhengmu, CHEN Zujing. Research Trend and Vein of Forest Soil Microorganisms:Visual Analysis Based on Citespace[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(21): 48-56.

Figures/Tables 8

References 35

[1]	何越, 李春涛, 俞元春, 等. 亚热带森林土壤微生物生物量及群落功能特征的城乡梯度变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(1):93-102. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202101.034
[2]	管冠, 郭, 李倩磊, 等. 生草栽培对纽荷尔脐橙根系生长土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(17):220-225.
[3]	王继龙. 水分胁迫对不同基因型苎麻农艺性状、根系生长及土壤微生物的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2020.
[4]	江世明. 根系微生物促进东南景天在Cd污染土壤中的生长机制及其应用途径[D]. 广州: 广州大学, 2021.
[5]	杨海君, 肖启明, 刘安元. 土壤微生物多样性及其作用研究进展[J]. 南华大学学报(自然科学版), 2005(4):21-26,31.
[6]	周恒. 不同海拔高寒草原土壤微生物特征及其适应机制[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2019,2019.000033.
[7]	胡靓达, 李远发, 周海菊, 等. 细叶云南松混交林土壤微生物群落功能特性及与林分结构关系的研究[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2022, 37(3):16-23,44.
[8]	SCHIMEL J P, BENNETT J. Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a changing paradigm[J]. Ecology, 2004, 85(3):509-602.
[9]	CERTINI G. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review[J]. Oecologia, 2005, 43(1):1-10. doi: 10.1007/BF00346668 URL
[10]	BALDRIA N, KOLARI K, STURSOV A, et al. Active and total microbial communities in forest soil are largely different and highly stratified during decomposition[J]. Isme j, 2012, 6(2):248-258. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.95 pmid: 21776033
[11]	FREY S D, KNORR M, PARRENT J L, et al. Chronic nitrogen enrichment affects the structure and function of the soil microbial community in temperate hardwood and pine forests[J]. Forest ecology and management, 2004, 196(1):159-171. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.018 URL
[12]	BETH F T, BROCKETT, CINDY E, et al. Soil moisture is the major factor influencing microbial community structure and enzyme activities across seven biogeo climatic zones in western Canada[J]. Soil biology & biochemistry, 2012, 44(1):9-20. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.09.003 URL
[13]	CAO S, CHEN L, YU X. Impact of China's Grain for Green Project on the landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions: a case study in northern Shaanxi Province[J]. Journal of applied ecology, 2009, 46(3):536-543. doi: 10.1111/jpe.2009.46.issue-3 URL
[14]	GE S, GUO Y, ZHOU Z Q, et al. Potential water yield reduction due to forestation across China[J]. Journal of hydrology, 2006, 328(3-4):548-558. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.013 URL
[15]	SMITH S E, READ D J. Mycorrhizal symbiosis[J]. Biologia plantarum, 1997, 40:154.
[16]	SUDHIR K, GLEN S, KOICHIRO T. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets[J]. Molecular biology & evolution, 2016(7):1870.
[17]	TEAM R C. A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing[J]. MSOR connections1, 2014, 1:1.
[18]	OKSANEN J, BLANCHET F G, FRIENDLY M, et al. Vegan community ecology package version 2.5-7[M], 2020:1-1.
[19]	JOHNSON N C, GRAHAM J H, SMITH F A, et al. Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism-parasitism continuum[J]. New phytologist, 1997, 135(4):575-585. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00729.x URL
[20]	LILLESKOV E A, FAHEY T J, LOVETT H. Belowground ectomycorrhizal fungal community change over a nitrogen deposition gradient in Alaska[J]. Ecology, 2002, 83(1):104-115. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[0104:BEFCCO]2.0.CO;2 URL
[21]	AN S, MENTLER A, MAYER H, et al. Soil aggregation, aggregate stability, organic carbon and nitrogen in different soil aggregate fractions under forest and shrub vegetation on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Catena, 2010, 81(3):226-233. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2010.04.002 URL
[22]	SOKOL N W, BRADFORD M A. Microbial formation of stable soil carbon is more efficient from belowground than aboveground input[J]. Nature geoscience, 2019, 12(1):46-53. doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0258-6
[23]	FIERER N, LEFF J W, ADAMS B J, et al. Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012, 109(52):21390. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1215210110 pmid: 23236140
[24]	VĚTROVSKY T, BALDRIAN P, NEUFELD J. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses[J]. Plos one, 2013, 8(2):e57923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057923 URL
[25]	HANSON P J, EDWARDS N T, GARTEN C T, et al. Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2000, 48(1):115-146. doi: 10.1023/A:1006244819642 URL
[26]	HOGBERG P, NORDGREN A, BUCHMANN N, et al. Large-scale forest girdling shows that current photosynthesis drives soil respiration[J]. Nature, 2001, 411(6839):789. doi: 10.1038/35081058 URL
[27]	JANSSENS I A, DIELEMAN W, LUYSSAERT S, et al. Reduction of forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition[J]. Nature geosci, 2010, 3:315-322. doi: 10.1038/ngeo844
[28]	SCHIMEL J, BALSER T C, WALLENSTEIN M. Microbial stress-response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function[J]. Ecology, 2007, 88(6):1386-94. doi: 10.1890/06-0219 pmid: 17601131
[29]	ROESCH L F, FULTHORPE R, RIVA A, et al. Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity[J]. Isme j, 2007, 1:283-290. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2007.53 pmid: 18043639
[30]	FROSTEGÅRD Å, BÅÅTH1A E, TUNLI O. Shifts in the structure of soil microbial communities in limed forests as revealed by phospholipid fatty acid analysis[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 1993, 25(6):723-730. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(93)90113-P URL
[31]	ERIC A D. Soil water content and temperature as independent or confounded factors controlling soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest[J]. Global change biology, 1998, 4(2):217-227. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00128.x URL
[32]	MANGAN S A, SCHNITZER S A, HERRE E A, et al. Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest[J]. Nature, 2010, 466(7307):752-755. doi: 10.1038/nature09273
[33]	SUN J, SUSAN R, MUHAMMAD S U, et al. Plant-soil feedback during biological invasions: effect of litter decomposition from an invasive plant (Sphagneticola trilobata) on its native congener (S. calendulacea)[J]. Journal of plant ecology, 2021, 15(3):610-624. doi: 10.1093/jpe/rtab095 URL
[34]	NGUYEN N H, SONG Z W, SCOTT T B, et al. Funguild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild[J]. Fungal ecology, 2016, 20(1):241-248. doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006 URL
[35]	翁晓虹, 隋心. 基于Web of Science的森林土壤微生物多样性研究趋势分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(10):157-164. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0481

排名	发文量/篇	中心性	国家
1	13222	0.06	美国
2	7945	0.02	中国
3	4190	0.08	德国
4	3011	0.01	加拿大
5	2904	0.01	巴西
6	2695	0.04	澳大利亚
7	2488	0.14	法国
8	2302	0.04	西班牙
9	2039	0.07	英国
10	1759	0.06	日本

排名	发文量/篇	中心性	国家
1	13222	0.06	美国
2	7945	0.02	中国
3	4190	0.08	德国
4	3011	0.01	加拿大
5	2904	0.01	巴西
6	2695	0.04	澳大利亚
7	2488	0.14	法国
8	2302	0.04	西班牙
9	2039	0.07	英国
10	1759	0.06	日本

机构	WOS中篇均被引频次	发文量/篇	首发年份	中心性	所属国家
中国科学院	22.45	3132	1999	0.05	中国
中国科学院大学	16.25	1011	2013	0.00	中国
瑞典农业大学	55.21	833	1990	0.04	瑞典
美国林业局	39.24	811	1997	0.02	美国
俄罗斯科学院	15.98	762	1998	0.01	俄罗斯
哥廷根大学	36.86	574	1998	0.03	德国
西班牙国家研究委员会	34.95	568	1991	0.03	西班牙
佛罗里达大学	40.29	531	1997	0.01	美国
赫尔辛基大学	40.64	528	1998	0.02	芬兰
法国农业科学研究院	56.42	474	1991	0.06	法国

机构	WOS中篇均被引频次	发文量/篇	首发年份	中心性	所属国家
中国科学院	22.45	3132	1999	0.05	中国
中国科学院大学	16.25	1011	2013	0.00	中国
瑞典农业大学	55.21	833	1990	0.04	瑞典
美国林业局	39.24	811	1997	0.02	美国
俄罗斯科学院	15.98	762	1998	0.01	俄罗斯
哥廷根大学	36.86	574	1998	0.03	德国
西班牙国家研究委员会	34.95	568	1991	0.03	西班牙
佛罗里达大学	40.29	531	1997	0.01	美国
赫尔辛基大学	40.64	528	1998	0.02	芬兰
法国农业科学研究院	56.42	474	1991	0.06	法国

机构	发文量/篇	首发年份	中心性
中国科学院	3132	1999	0.05
中国科学院大学	1011	2012	0.00
西北农林科技大学	406	2013	0.00
中国林业科学研究院	406	2005	0.00
北京林业大学	286	2009	0.00
南京林业大学	279	2010	0.00
东北林业大学	205	2014	0.00
浙江大学	188	2003	0.01
中国农业科学院	183	2012	0.01
南京农业大学	180	2004	0.00