Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global ecological predictors of the soil priming effect

Open access
Bastida, Felipe, García, Carlos, Fierer, Noah, Eldridge, David J., Bowker, Matthew A., Abades, Sebastián, Alfaro, Fernando D., Asefaw Berhe, Asmeret, Cutler, Nick A., Gallardo, Antonio, García-Velázquez, Laura, Hart, Stephen C., Hayes, Patrick E., Hernández, Teresa, Hseu, Zeng-Yei, Jehmlich, Nico, Kirchmair, Martin, Lambers, Hans, Neuhauser, Sigrid, Peña-Ramírez, Víctor M., Pérez, Cecilia A., Reed, Sasha C., Santos, Fernanda, Siebe, Christina, Sullivan, Benjamin W., Trivedi, Pankaj, Vera, Alfonso, Williams, Mark A., Luis Moreno, José, Delgado-Baquerizo, Manuel·2019·Nature Communications

Abstract

Identifying the global drivers of soil priming is essential to understanding C cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. We conducted a survey of soils across 86 globally-distributed locations, spanning a wide range of climates, biotic communities, and soil conditions, and evaluated the apparent soil priming effect using 13 C-glucose labeling. Here we show that the magnitude of the positive apparent priming effect (increase in CO 2 release through accelerated microbial biomass turnover) was negatively associated with SOC content and microbial respiration rates. Our statistical modeling suggests that apparent priming effects tend to be negative in more mesic sites associated with higher SOC contents. In contrast, a single-input of labile C causes positive apparent priming effects in more arid locations with low SOC contents. Our results provide solid evidence that SOC content plays a critical role in regulating apparent priming effects, with important implications for the improvement of C cycling models under global change scenarios.

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/s41467-019-11472-7

Cites

76 of 76 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 76 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Bastida, F., García, C., Fierer, N., Eldridge, D. J., Bowker, M. A., Abades, S., Alfaro, F. D., Asefaw Berhe, A., Cutler, N. A., Gallardo, A., García-Velázquez, L., Hart, S. C., Hayes, P. E., Hernández, T., Hseu, Z.-Y., Jehmlich, N., Kirchmair, M., Lambers, H., Neuhauser, S., Peña-Ramírez, V. M., Pérez, C. A., Reed, S. C., Santos, F., Siebe, C., Sullivan, B. W., Trivedi, P., Vera, A., Williams, M. A., Luis Moreno, J., & Delgado-Baquerizo, M.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2019-08-02
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
3481-3481
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2966591034
Cited by
309
References
76
FWCI
18.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Global ecological predictors of the soil priming effect. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-019-11472-7
The paper
Bastida, F., García, C., Fierer, N., Eldridge, D. J., Bowker, M. A., Abades, S., Alfaro, F. D., Asefaw Berhe, A., Cutler, N. A., Gallardo, A., García-Velázquez, L., Hart, S. C., Hayes, P. E., Hernández, T., Hseu, Z.-Y., Jehmlich, N., Kirchmair, M., Lambers, H., Neuhauser, S., . . . Delgado-Baquerizo, M. (2019). Global ecological predictors of the soil priming effect. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11472-7

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.