The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Functional diversity of microbial decomposers facilitates plant coexistence in a plant–microbe–soil feedback model
Open accessAbstract
Theory and empirical evidence suggest that plant–soil feedback (PSF) determines the structure of a plant community and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. The plant community alters the nutrient pool size in soil by affecting litter decomposition processes, which in turn shapes the plant community, forming a PSF system. However, the role of microbial decomposers in PSF function is often overlooked, and it remains unclear whether decomposers reinforce or weaken litter-mediated plant control over nutrient cycling. Here, we present a theoretical model incorporating the functional diversity of both plants and microbial decomposers. Two fundamental microbial processes are included that control nutrient mineralization from plant litter: ( i ) assimilation of mineralized nutrient into the microbial biomass (microbial immobilization), and ( ii ) release of the microbial nutrients into the inorganic nutrient pool (net mineralization). With this model, we show that microbial diversity may act as a buffer that weakens plant control over the soil nutrient pool, reversing the sign of PSF from positive to negative and facilitating plant coexistence. This is explained by the decoupling of litter decomposability and nutrient pool size arising from a flexible change in the microbial community composition and decomposition processes in response to variations in plant litter decomposability. Our results suggest that the microbial community plays a central role in PSF function and the plant community structure. Furthermore, the results strongly imply that the plant-centered view of nutrient cycling should be changed to a plant–microbe–soil feedback system, by incorporating the community ecology of microbial decomposers and their functional diversity.
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
Van Der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D., & Van Straalen, N. M. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x · Cited by 5,053
Cited by
Fierer, N., Lauber, C. L., Ramirez, K. S., Zaneveld, J., Bradford, M. A., & Knight, R. (2012) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2011.159 · Cited by 1,866
Zeng, J., Liu, X., Song, L., Lin, X., Zhang, H., Shen, C., & Chu, H. (2016) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.018 · Cited by 719
Microbial Population and Community Dynamics on Plant Roots and Their Feedbacks on Plant Communities
Bever, J. D., Platt, T. G., & Morton, E. R. (2012) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev-micro-092611-150107 · Cited by 577
Jiao, S., Chen, W., & Wei, G. (2017) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14218 · Cited by 351
Spatial scale drives patterns in soil bacterial diversity
O'Brien, S. L., Gibbons, S. M., Owens, S. M., Hampton‐Marcell, J., Johnston, E. R., Jastrow, J. D., Gilbert, J. A., Meyer, F., & Antonopoulos, D. A. (2016) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.13231 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Miki, T., Ushio, M., Fukui, S., & Kondoh, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-07-27
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 32
- Pages
- 14251-14256
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2053253281
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.01
- 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: Functional diversity of microbial decomposers facilitates plant coexistence in a plant–microbe–soil feedback model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0914281107
- The paper
- Miki, T., Ushio, M., Fukui, S., & Kondoh, M. (2010). Functional diversity of microbial decomposers facilitates plant coexistence in a plant–microbe–soil feedback model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914281107
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.