ArticlePloS one2026
Fine-scale recovery of mite communities following local extinctions on grasslands.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agricultural management can substantially reduce soil biodiversity, potentially impairing key ecosystem processes. Understanding the capacity of soil biota to recover after severe disturbance is therefore essential for evaluating soil resilience. Soil-dwelling mite communities are known to respond sensitively to environmental change. We investigated the recovery of soil mite communities in a newly planted grassland using half-open field mesocosms. Grass mixtures were cultivated over three consecutive eight-month periods in chernozem and sandy soils. Within each system, mite assemblages in minimally disturbed soil were compared with those in experimentally defaunated soil, while a range of environmental variables was monitored. This design enabled the assessment of short-term local recovery potential. Mesostigmata (mean ± standard deviation of defaunation effect size, ES= + 0.07 ± 0.91) and Heterostigmata (Pygmephoroidea, ES= + 0.20 ± 0.61; Tarsonemidae, ES = -0.05 ± 0.36) recovered rapidly, likely due to efficient dispersal and high population growth rates. Their abundance was generally positively associated with vegetation biomass, suggesting improved microhabitat conditions and resource availability. In contrast, oribatid mites showed consistently slow and often incomplete recovery (ES = - 1.08 ± 0.66), highlighting the constraints imposed by limited dispersal ability and slow life cycles. Their recovery was further modulated by edaphic conditions, with more favourable outcomes in chernozem than in sandy soil. Overall, these results show that soil mite recovery is shaped by the interaction between taxon-specific life-history traits and environmental conditions. The findings further demonstrate that mite communities respond differently to disturbance, highlighting the need to account for functional differences among taxa when assessing recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.