The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effects of fungal root endophytes on plant growth: a meta-analysis
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
Schulz, B., & Boyle, C. (2005) · Mycological Research · doi:10.1017/s095375620500273x · Cited by 1,467
VARIATION IN PLANT RESPONSE TO NATIVE AND EXOTIC ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI
Klironomos, J. N. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/02-0413 · Cited by 1,213
Endophytic fungi: a source of novel biologically active secondary metabolites
Schulz, B., Boyle, C., Draeger, S., Römmert, A.-K., & Krohn, K. (2002) · Mycological Research · doi:10.1017/s0953756202006342 · Cited by 1,206
A meta‐analysis of context‐dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi
Hoeksema, J. D., Chaudhary, V. B., Gehring, C. A., Johnson, N. C., Karst, J., Koide, R. T., Pringle, A., Zabinski, C., Bever, J. D., Moore, J. C., et al. (2010) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x · Cited by 1,199
FUNGAL ENDOPHYTES: A Continuum of Interactions with Host Plants
Saikkonen, K., Faeth, S. H., Helander, M., & Sullivan, T. J. (1998) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.319 · Cited by 1,106
STATISTICAL ISSUES IN ECOLOGICAL META-ANALYSES
Gurevitch, J., & Hedges, L. V. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1142:siiema]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,081
Dark septate endophytes: a review of facultative biotrophic root‐colonizing fungi
JUMPPONEN, A., & TRAPPE, J. M. (1998) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1998.00265.x · Cited by 1,002
(2006) · Soil Biology · doi:10.1007/3-540-33526-9 · Cited by 681
A meta‐analysis of plant responses to dark septate root endophytes
Newsham, K. K. (2011) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03611.x · Cited by 665
Cited by
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology
Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2014) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12224 · Cited by 460
Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses
Christie, A. P., Amano, T., Martin, P. A., Shackelford, G. E., Simmons, B. I., & Sutherland, W. J. (2019) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13499 · Cited by 375
Linear and generalized linear mixed models
Bolker, B. M. (2015) · Ecological Statistics · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0014 · Cited by 339
Use of meta-analysis in forest biodiversity research: key challenges and considerations
Spake, R., & Doncaster, C. P. (2017) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.05.059 · Cited by 60
“…have been suggested, including weighting by an ordinal classification of study quality (e.g.Vanderwell et al., 2007), nonparametric weighting (Adams et al., 1997; Mayerhofer et al., 2013), imputation methods that fill in missing data (Lajeunesse, 2013) and Bayesian models (Ogle et al., 2013).”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- Authors
- Mayerhofer, M. S., Kernaghan, G., & Harper, K. A.
- Venue
- Mycorrhiza
- Published
- 2012-07-21
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 119-128
- ISSN
- 0940-6360 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1890
- OpenAlex
- W1983821394
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effects of fungal root endophytes on plant growth: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00572-012-0456-9
- The paper
- Mayerhofer, M. S., Kernaghan, G., & Harper, K. A. (2013). The effects of fungal root endophytes on plant growth: a meta-analysis. Mycorrhiza. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-012-0456-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
