The Response of Soil Microorganisms to Planting Patterns Based on CiteSpace Bibliometric Analysis

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0447

Abstract

Abstract:

Soil microbial communities have a significant impact on ecosystems. To understand the effects of different planting patterns on soil microorganisms and their characteristics, advancements, hot topics, and trends, CiteSpace literature visualization software was utilized to investigate 2123 research papers published between 2002 and 2022 to analyze the effects of different planting patterns on soil microorganisms in this study. Visual analysis was conducted based on countries, institutions, authors, journals, co-cited references, and keywords to explore the hot topics and development trends in this field. The results showed an overall increasing trend in literature concerning the effects of different planting patterns on soil microorganisms over 2002 to 2022. In terms of publication volume by countries, China and the United States were in the leading position. The United States had 484 publications, accounting for 22.79% of the total, ranking first. China closely followed with 431 publications, accounting for 20.30%. There was frequent exchange between China and the United States. Although the Chinese Academy of Sciences had a later start in initial publications, it held a prominent position in this research field. Chinese researchers had a large proportion of publications, but collaborations with scholars from other countries were relatively limited. Research was concentrated in interdisciplinary fields such as biology and biochemistry, physics, and agronomy, indicating a trend towards interdisciplinary integration. High-throughput sequencing-based soil microbial metagenomics studies are essential for understanding the responses of soil microorganisms to planting patterns in the future. Current research hot topics mainly revolve around patterns, communities, rhizospheres, carbon, nitrogen, and other related issues. Potential future areas of development may include disease resistance, decomposition, and biogeography.

Key words: soil microorganisms, planting mode, CiteSpace, Web of Science, bibliometric analysis

HU Haonan, FENG Haiping, ZHANG Kai, WU Hongliang, KANG Jianhong. The Response of Soil Microorganisms to Planting Patterns Based on CiteSpace Bibliometric Analysis[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(13): 146-156.

Figures/Tables 16

References 44

[1]	汤静文, 曾碧健, 梁禹贵, 等. 不同种植模式对土壤微生物群落影响的研究进展[J]. 农业研究与应用, 2014(5):65-69.
[2]	KENNEDY A C, SMITH K L. Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability of agricultural soils[J]. Plant and soil, 1995, 170(1):75-86. doi: 10.1007/BF02183056 URL
[3]	张成君, 师尚礼, 康文娟, 等. 不同轮作模式土壤酶活性特征及与化学性质的关系[J]. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(5):92-102.
[4]	陈兴琼, 李金娜, 国一凡, 等. 华北平原春玉米多熟种植模式对土壤真菌群落的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2022, 30(10):1588-1600.
[5]	王立光, 叶春雷, 陈军, 等. 胡麻/小麦间作与胡麻-小麦轮作对土壤理化特性及胡麻生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(12):161-171.
[6]	宋佳承, 王天, 闫士朋, 等. 不同种植模式对土壤质量及马铃薯生长的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2020, 57(2):490-499.
[7]	HABIG J, LABUSCHAGNE J, MARAIS M, et al. The effect of a medic-wheat rotational system and contrasting degrees of soil disturbance on nematode functional groups and soil microbial communities[J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2018,268:103-114.
[8]	HILTON S, BENNETT A J, CHANDLER D, et al. Preceding crop and seasonal effects influence fungal, bacterial and nematode diversity in wheat and oilseed rape rhizosphere and soil[J]. Applied soil ecology, 2018,126:34-46.
[9]	张三夕, 刘烨. 论作为一种文学研究方法的文献学[J]. 湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2019, 46(4):39-43.
[10]	CHEN C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature[J]. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 2006, 57(3):359-377. doi: 10.1002/asi.v57:3 URL
[11]	CHEN C, IBEKWE-SANJUAN F, HOU J. The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis[J]. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 2010, 61(7):1386-1409. doi: 10.1002/asi.v61:7 URL
[12]	杨阳, 李海亮, 虞凡枫, 等. 氮沉降对土壤微生物影响研究热点与趋势分析——基于Citespace可视化分析[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(1):116-126.
[13]	CHEN Y, CHEN C M, LIU Z Y, et al. The methodology function of CiteSpace mapping knowledge domains[J]. Studies in science of science, 2015, 33(2):242-253.
[14]	唐浩竣, 李海萍, 陈文悦, 等. 基于科学知识图谱谈土壤有机碳研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(3):541-552.
[15]	胡泽文, 孙建军, 武夷山. 国内知识图谱应用研究综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(3):131-137.
[16]	于美佳, 叶彦辉, 段少荣, 等. 基于文献计量学的氮沉降对土壤微生物影响的可视化分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(9):230-236.
[17]	LI H C. CRABBE M J, CHEN H. History and trends in ecological stoichiometry research from 1992 to 2019: A scientometric analysis[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(21):8909. doi: 10.3390/su12218909 URL
[18]	WEI F, GRUBESIC T H, BISHOP B W. Exploring the GIS knowledge domain using CiteSpace[J]. The professional geographer, 2015, 67(3):374-384. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2014.983588 URL
[19]	GAO H, DING X H, WU S. Exploring the domain of open innovation: Bibliometric and content analyses[J]. Journal of cleaner production, 2020,275:122580.
[20]	LIU H, JIANG Y, FAN H, et al. Visualization analysis of knowledge network research based on mapping knowledge[J]. Journal of signal processing systems, 2021, 93(2):333-344. doi: 10.1007/s11265-020-01595-2
[21]	GANDIA R M, ANTONIALLI F, CAVAZZA B H, et al. Autonomous vehicles: Scientometric and bibliometric review[J]. Transport reviews, 2019, 39(1):9-28. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2018.1518937 URL
[22]	串丽敏, 郑怀国, 赵同科, 等. 基于Web of Science数据库的土壤污染修复领域发展态势分析[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2016, 35(1):12-20.
[23]	LAL R. Beyond copenhagen: mitigating climate change and achieving food security through soil carbon sequestration[J]. Food security, 2010, 2(2):169-177. doi: 10.1007/s12571-010-0060-9 URL
[24]	COSTANZA R, D'ARGE R, DE GROOT R, et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 1997,387:253-260.
[25]	R CORE TEAM R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing[J]. Computing, 2011,1:12-21.
[26]	SMITH S E, READ D J. Mycorrhizal symbiosis[M]. New York: Academic press, 2010.
[27]	SMITH S E, READ D J. Mycorrhizal symbiosis[M]. New York: Academic press, 2008.
[28]	BENJAWAN T, LI J, ANDREAS S S, et al. FungalTraits vs. FUNGuild: Comparison of ecological functional assignments of leaf- and needle-associated fungi across 12 temperate tree species[J]. Microbial ecology, 2023,85(2):411-428.
[29]	TAMURA K, DUDLEY J, NEI M, et al. MEGA4: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0[J]. Molecular biology and evolution, 2007, 24(8):1596-1599. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm092 pmid: 17488738
[30]	TAMURA K, PETERSON D, PETERSON N, et al. MEGA5: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods[J]. Molecular biology and evolution, 2011, 28(10):2731-2739. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr121 pmid: 21546353
[31]	DIXON P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology[J]. Journal of vegetation science, 2003, 14(6):927-930. doi: 10.1111/jvs.2003.14.issue-6 URL
[32]	EDWARDS J, JOHNSON C, SANTOS-MEDELLÍN C, et al. Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice[J]. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 2015, 112(8):E911-E920.
[33]	TRIVEDI P, LEACH J E, TRINGE S G, et al. Plant-microbiome interactions: From community assembly to plant health[J]. Nature reviews microbiology, 2020, 18(11):607-621. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0412-1
[34]	CALLAHAN B J, MCMURDIE P J, ROSEN M J, et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data[J]. Nature methods, 2016, 13(7):581-583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 pmid: 27214047
[45]	MAUSER W, KLEPPER G, RICE M, et al. Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability[J]. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 2013, 5(3/4):420-431. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001 URL
[46]	GRUNSKY E C. R: A data analysis and statistical programming environment- An emerging tool for the geosciences[J]. Computers & geosciences, 2002, 28(10):1219-1222. doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(02)00034-1 URL
[47]	JALAL H, PECHLIVANOGLOU P, KRIJKAMP E, et al. An overview of R in health decision sciences[J]. Medical decision making, 2017, 37(7):735-746. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16686559 pmid: 28061043
[48]	TIPPMANN S. Programming tools: Adventures with R[J]. Nature, 2015,517:109-110.
[49]	NGUYEN N H, SONG Z, BATES S T, et al. FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild[J]. Fungal ecology, 2016,20:241-248.
[35]	OUYANG W, WANG Y, LIN C, et al. Heavy metal loss from agricultural watershed to aquatic system: A scientometrics review[J]. Science of the total environment, 2018,637:208-220.
[36]	陈悦, 陈超美, 刘则渊, 等. CiteSpace知识图谱的方法论功能[J]. 科学学研究, 2015, 33(2):242-253.
[37]	张杨, 朱林, 程云龙, 等. 根系分泌物研究现状及趋势——基于CiteSpace的知识图谱分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(14):34-45.
[38]	孙圆, 梁子瑜, 汪贵斌, 等. 农林复合经营工程领域研究热点与前沿分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(6):228-235. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201912037
[39]	SMIT E, LEEFLANG P, WERNARS K. Detection of shifts in microbial community structure and diversity in soil caused by copper contamination using amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis[J]. Fems microbiology ecology, 1997, 23(3):249-261. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.1997.tb00407.x URL
[40]	何薇, 张超, 任磊, 等. 中国公民的科学素质及对科学技术的态度——2018年中国公民科学素质抽样调查报告[J]. 科普研究, 2019, 13(6):49-58,65.
[41]	郭大勇, 郭凯丽, 王旭刚, 等. 基于Web of Science和CNKI的生物炭研究文献计量分析[J]. 东北农业科学, 2017, 42(4):49-54.
[42]	林先贵, 胡君利. 土壤微生物多样性的科学内涵及其生态服务功能[J]. 土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):892-900.
[43]	李静超, 佘容, 杨晓燕. 土壤微生物宏基因组研究现状——基于Citespace文献计量分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(28):142-152. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0811
[44]	许海云, 尹春晓, 郭婷. 学科交叉研究综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(5):119-127. doi: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.05.019

排名	发文量	中介中心性	年份	国家
1	484	0.31	2002	美国
2	431	0.07	2002	中国
3	216	0.18	2002	德国
4	178	0.16	2002	法国
5	149	0.14	2002	西班牙
6	120	0.05	2002	印度
7	117	0.09	2002	英国
8	101	0.11	2002	意大利
9	97	0.14	2002	澳大利亚
10	90	0.06	2002	加拿大

排名	发文量	中介中心性	年份	国家
1	484	0.31	2002	美国
2	431	0.07	2002	中国
3	216	0.18	2002	德国
4	178	0.16	2002	法国
5	149	0.14	2002	西班牙
6	120	0.05	2002	印度
7	117	0.09	2002	英国
8	101	0.11	2002	意大利
9	97	0.14	2002	澳大利亚
10	90	0.06	2002	加拿大

排名	发文量	中介中心性	首发年份	机构
1	89	0.18	2007	中国科学院
2	50	0.05	2002	西班牙高等科研理事会
3	43	0.09	2002	法国国家农业研究所
4	35	0.05	2004	中国农业大学
5	26	0.05	2002	美国农业科学研究院
6	19	0.05	2010	瓦格宁根大学
7	17	0.11	2008	瑞典农业科学院
8	11	0.06	2011	丹麦奥胡斯大学
9	10	0.05	2007	科罗拉多州立大学
10	10	0.04	2003	捷克科学院

排名	发文量	中介中心性	首发年份	机构
1	89	0.18	2007	中国科学院
2	50	0.05	2002	西班牙高等科研理事会
3	43	0.09	2002	法国国家农业研究所
4	35	0.05	2004	中国农业大学
5	26	0.05	2002	美国农业科学研究院
6	19	0.05	2010	瓦格宁根大学
7	17	0.11	2008	瑞典农业科学院
8	11	0.06	2011	丹麦奥胡斯大学
9	10	0.05	2007	科罗拉多州立大学
10	10	0.04	2003	捷克科学院

排名	作者	发文量	共被引作者	被引次数	中介中心性
1	Jiao S	9	Smith S E	149	0.15
2	Shen Q R	6	Edgar R C	128	0.04
3	Chen W M	5	Caporaso J G	117	0.03
4	Terrat S	5	Fierer N	115	0.05
5	Ranjard L	5	Altschul S F	112	0.07
6	Dequiedt S	5	Thompson J D	87	0.06
7	Chen Q L	4	R Core Team	85	0.02
8	Hu H W	4	Sambrook J	83	0.06
9	Lievens B	4	Tamura K	82	0.04
10	Wang W	4	White T J	78	0.05