The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests
Open accessAbstract
Summary: A growing body of empirical work suggests that soil organisms can exert a strong role in plant community dynamics and may contribute to the coexistence of plant species. Some of this evidence comes from examining the feedback on plant growth through changes in the composition of the soil community. Host specific changes in soil community composition can generate feedback on plant growth and this feedback can be positive or negative. Previous work has demonstrated that negative soil community feedback can contribute to the coexistence of equivalent competitors. In this paper, I show that negative soil community feedback can also contribute to the coexistence of strong competitors, maintaining plant species that would not coexist in the absence of soil community dynamics. I review the evidence for soil community feedback and find accumulating evidence that soil community feedback can be common, strongly negative, and generated by a variety of complementary soil microbial mechanisms, including host‐specific changes in the composition of the rhizosphere bacteria, nematodes, pathogenic fungi, and mycorrhizal fungi. Finally, I suggest topics needing further examination.
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
Herbivores and the Number of Tree Species in Tropical Forests
Janzen, D. H. (1970) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282687 · Cited by 4,774
Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity
van der Heijden, M. G. A., Klironomos, J. N., Ursic, M., Moutoglis, P., Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., & Sanders, I. R. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/23932 · Cited by 3,553
Connell, J. H., & Connell, J. H. (1971) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,093
What Attributes Make Some Plant Species More Invasive?
Rejmanek, M., & Richardson, D. M. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265768 · Cited by 1,875
Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, 2nd edn.
Robinson, C. H., Smith, S. E., & Read, D. J. (1997) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2960617 · Cited by 1,753
Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities
Klironomos, J. N. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/417067a · Cited by 1,748
Species diversity in ecological communities
Wiens, J. A. (1994) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(94)90163-5 · Cited by 1,720
(2002) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-652840-4.x5000-1 · Cited by 1,580
Bever, J. D., Westover, K. M., & Antonovics, J. (1997) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2960528 · Cited by 1,201
Self-citationGlomalean Fungi from the Ordovician
Redecker, D., Kodner, R., & Graham, L. E. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.289.5486.1920 · Cited by 1,171
Cited by
Unravelling rhizosphere–microbial interactions: opportunities and limitations
Singh, B. K., Millard, P., Whiteley, A. S., & Murrell, J. C. (2004) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2004.06.008 · Cited by 503
Maintenance of Plant Species Diversity by Pathogens
Bever, J. D., Mangan, S. A., & Alexander, H. M. (2015) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054306 · Cited by 482
Self-citationThe Future of Complementarity: Disentangling Causes from Consequences
Barry, K. E., Mommer, L., van Ruijven, J., Wirth, C., Wright, A. J., Bai, Y., Connolly, J., De Deyn, G. B., de Kroon, H., Isbell, F., et al. (2019) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.013 · Cited by 459
Functional Soil Microbiome: Belowground Solutions to an Aboveground Problem
Lakshmanan, V., Selvaraj, G., & Bais, H. P. (2014) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.114.245811 · Cited by 400
Vogelsang, K. M., Reynolds, H. L., & Bever, J. D. (2006) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01854.x · Cited by 396
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bever, J. D.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 157
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 465-473
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2098387463
- Cited by
- 873
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 28.68
- 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: Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00714.x
- The paper
- Bever, J. D. (2003). Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00714.x
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.
