Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 477

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of global fungal distribution reveals climate-driven patterns

Open access
Větrovský, Tomáš, Kohout, Petr, Kopecký, Martin, Machac, Antonin, Man, Matěj, Bahnmann, Barbara Doreen, Brabcová, Vendula, Choi, Jinlyung, Meszárošová, Lenka, Human, Zander Rainier, Lepinay, Clémentine, Lladó, Salvador, López-Mondéjar, Rubén, Martinović, Tijana, Mašínová, Tereza, Morais, Daniel, Navrátilová, Diana, Odriozola, Iñaki, Štursová, Martina, Švec, Karel, Tláskal, Vojtěch, Urbanová, Michaela, Wan, Joe, Žifčáková, Lucia, Howe, Adina, Ladau, Joshua, Peay, Kabir Gabriel, Storch, David, Wild, Jan, Baldrian, Petr·2019·Nature Communications

Abstract

The evolutionary and environmental factors that shape fungal biogeography are incompletely understood. Here, we assemble a large dataset consisting of previously generated mycobiome data linked to specific geographical locations across the world. We use this dataset to describe the distribution of fungal taxa and to look for correlations with different environmental factors such as climate, soil and vegetation variables. Our meta-study identifies climate as an important driver of different aspects of fungal biogeography, including the global distribution of common fungi as well as the composition and diversity of fungal communities. In our analysis, fungal diversity is concentrated at high latitudes, in contrast with the opposite pattern previously shown for plants and other organisms. Mycorrhizal fungi appear to have narrower climatic tolerances than pathogenic fungi. We speculate that climate change could affect ecosystem functioning because of the narrow climatic tolerances of key fungal taxa.

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/s41467-019-13164-8

Cites

53 of 53 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 53 references

Cited by

See all 477

Metadata

Authors
Větrovský, T., Kohout, P., Kopecký, M., Machac, A., Man, M., Bahnmann, B. D., Brabcová, V., Choi, J., Meszárošová, L., Human, Z. R., Lepinay, C., Lladó, S., López-Mondéjar, R., Martinović, T., Mašínová, T., Morais, D., Navrátilová, D., Odriozola, I., Štursová, M., Švec, K., Tláskal, V., Urbanová, M., Wan, J., Žifčáková, L., Howe, A., Ladau, J., Peay, K. G., Storch, D., Wild, J., & Baldrian, P.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2019-11-13
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
5142-5142
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2983868970
Cited by
477
References
53
FWCI
6.50
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: A meta-analysis of global fungal distribution reveals climate-driven patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-019-13164-8
The paper
Větrovský, T., Kohout, P., Kopecký, M., Machac, A., Man, M., Bahnmann, B. D., Brabcová, V., Choi, J., Meszárošová, L., Human, Z. R., Lepinay, C., Lladó, S., López-Mondéjar, R., Martinović, T., Mašínová, T., Morais, D., Navrátilová, D., Odriozola, I., Štursová, M., . . . Baldrian, P. (2019). A meta-analysis of global fungal distribution reveals climate-driven patterns. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13164-8

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.