Back

Orchard management alters citrus root and rhizosphere microbiomes with functional consequences for plant performance

Ginnan, N.; Jones, R.; Wu-Woods, J.; Pervaiz, T.; El-kereamy, A.; Ashworth, V. E.; Hamid, M. I.; Dawson, E. K.; Strauss, S. L.; Stajich, J.; Rolshausen, P.; Roper, M. C.

2026-04-17 systems biology
10.64898/2026.04.14.717254 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Agricultural management practices act as ecological disturbances that can restructure soil and plant-associated microbial communities, but the functional consequences of these microbial shifts on crop performance remain poorly understood. Here, we examined how common orchard inputs, including wood mulch, glyphosate, and humic acid, affect citrus root and rhizosphere microbiomes and tree performance over a three-year field experiment. Mulch emerged as the dominant driver of microbiome structure, significantly altering bacterial and fungal community composition and increasing rhizosphere alpha diversity. Root microbiomes remained comparatively stable, suggesting stronger host selective forces within root tissues. Mulched rhizospheres were enriched with saprotrophic fungi and metabolically diverse bacteria, while non-mulched soils contained taxa typically associated with nutrient cycling, like Rhizobium, Sphingomonas, and Nitrososphaera. Interactions between mulch and glyphosate further reshaped bacterial communities and corresponded with reduced tree physiological performance, including photosynthesis rates. To verify whether these microbial shifts were contributing to these plant phenotype changes, we conducted a greenhouse experiment using field-derived soil microbiota. Active microbiota from mulch-treated soils reduced citrus seedling establishment and root growth relative to microbiota from non-mulched soils, whereas heat-killed controls eliminated these negative effects, demonstrating a causal relationship between management-induced microbiota changes and decreases in plant performance. In contrast, humic acid influenced plant growth primarily through direct abiotic effects rather than microbial community-level traits. Together, our results show that orchard management practices can restructure citrus microbiomes and generate community-level traits that influence plant performance, highlighting the importance of incorporating microbial ecology and microbiome information when designing and testing crop management strategies.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 13%
12.6%
2
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.4%
3
Environmental Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
5
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 9%
4.9%
6
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.9%
7
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.3%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.0%
9
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
10
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
11
Nature Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.0%
12
Phytobiomes Journal
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
13
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 25%
2.6%
15
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.3%
17
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.3%
19
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.1%
20
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.0%
22
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
23
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
25
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.8%
26
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
27
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.8%
28
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.8%
29
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%