Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,535

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them

Open access
Stegen, James C, Lin, Xueju, Fredrickson, Jim K, Chen, Xingyuan, Kennedy, David W, Murray, Christopher J, Rockhold, Mark L, Konopka, Allan·2013·The ISME Journal

Abstract

Spatial turnover in the composition of biological communities is governed by (ecological) Drift, Selection and Dispersal. Commonly applied statistical tools cannot quantitatively estimate these processes, nor identify abiotic features that impose these processes. For interrogation of subsurface microbial communities distributed across two geologically distinct formations of the unconfined aquifer underlying the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State, we developed an analytical framework that advances ecological understanding in two primary ways. First, we quantitatively estimate influences of Drift, Selection and Dispersal. Second, ecological patterns are used to characterize measured and unmeasured abiotic variables that impose Selection or that result in low levels of Dispersal. We find that (i) Drift alone consistently governs ∼25% of spatial turnover in community composition; (ii) in deeper, finer-grained sediments, Selection is strong (governing ∼60% of turnover), being imposed by an unmeasured but spatially structured environmental variable; (iii) in shallower, coarser-grained sediments, Selection is weaker (governing ∼30% of turnover), being imposed by vertically and horizontally structured hydrological factors;(iv) low levels of Dispersal can govern nearly 30% of turnover and be caused primarily by spatial isolation resulting from limited exchange between finer and coarser-grain sediments; and (v) highly permeable sediments are associated with high levels of Dispersal that homogenize community composition and govern over 20% of turnover. We further show that our framework provides inferences that cannot be achieved using preexisting approaches, and suggest that their broad application will facilitate a unified understanding of microbial communities.

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.2013.93

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 2,535

Metadata

Authors
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Fredrickson, J. K., Chen, X., Kennedy, D. W., Murray, C. J., Rockhold, M. L., & Konopka, A.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2013-06-06
Volume
7
Issue
11
Pages
2069-2079
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2007929767
Cited by
2,535
References
2
FWCI
11.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2013.93
The paper
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Fredrickson, J. K., Chen, X., Kennedy, D. W., Murray, C. J., Rockhold, M. L., & Konopka, A. (2013). Quantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.93

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.