Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 445

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Changes in assembly processes in soil bacterial communities following a wildfire disturbance

Open access
Ferrenberg, Scott, O’Neill, Sean P, Knelman, Joseph E, Todd, Bryan, Duggan, Sam, Bradley, Daniel, Robinson, Taylor, Schmidt, Steven K, Townsend, Alan R, Williams, Mark W, Cleveland, Cory C, Melbourne, Brett A, Jiang, Lin, Nemergut, Diana R·2013·The ISME Journal
DOI 10.1038/ismej.2013.11
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although recent work has shown that both deterministic and stochastic processes are important in structuring microbial communities, the factors that affect the relative contributions of niche and neutral processes are poorly understood. The macrobiological literature indicates that ecological disturbances can influence assembly processes. Thus, we sampled bacterial communities at 4 and 16 weeks following a wildfire and used null deviation analysis to examine the role that time since disturbance has in community assembly. Fire dramatically altered bacterial community structure and diversity as well as soil chemistry for both time-points. Community structure shifted between 4 and 16 weeks for both burned and unburned communities. Community assembly in burned sites 4 weeks after fire was significantly more stochastic than in unburned sites. After 16 weeks, however, burned communities were significantly less stochastic than unburned communities. Thus, we propose a three-phase model featuring shifts in the relative importance of niche and neutral processes as a function of time since disturbance. Because neutral processes are characterized by a decoupling between environmental parameters and community structure, we hypothesize that a better understanding of community assembly may be important in determining where and when detailed studies of community composition are valuable for predicting ecosystem function.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ismej.2013.11

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 445

Metadata

Authors
Ferrenberg, S., O’Neill, S. P., Knelman, J. E., Todd, B., Duggan, S., Bradley, D., Robinson, T., Schmidt, S. K., Townsend, A. R., Williams, M. W., Cleveland, C. C., Melbourne, B. A., Jiang, L., & Nemergut, D. R.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-02-14
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
1102-1111
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
DOI
10.1038/ismej.2013.11
OpenAlex
W2172076564
Cited by
445
References
72
FWCI
21.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Changes in assembly processes in soil bacterial communities following a wildfire disturbance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2013.11
The paper
Ferrenberg, S., O’Neill, S. P., Knelman, J. E., Todd, B., Duggan, S., Bradley, D., Robinson, T., Schmidt, S. K., Townsend, A. R., Williams, M. W., Cleveland, C. C., Melbourne, B. A., Jiang, L., & Nemergut, D. R. (2013). Changes in assembly processes in soil bacterial communities following a wildfire disturbance. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.11

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.