Cited by 321Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions

Plant diversity effects on soil food webs are stronger than those of elevated CO 2 and N deposition in a long-term grassland experiment

Open access
Eisenhauer, Nico, Dobies, Tomasz, Cesarz, Simone, Hobbie, Sarah E., Meyer, Ross J., Worm, Kally, Reich, Peter B.·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Recent metaanalyses suggest biodiversity loss affects the functioning of ecosystems to a similar extent as other global environmental change agents. However, the abundance and functioning of soil organisms have been hypothesized to be much less responsive to such changes, particularly in plant diversity, than aboveground variables, although tests of this hypothesis are extremely rare. We examined the responses of soil food webs (soil microorganisms, nematodes, microarthropods) to 13-y manipulation of multiple environmental factors that are changing at global scales—specifically plant species richness, atmospheric CO 2 , and N deposition—in a grassland experiment in Minnesota. Plant diversity was a strong driver of the structure and functioning of soil food webs through several bottom-up (resource control) effects, whereas CO 2 and N only had modest effects. We found few interactions between plant diversity and CO 2 and N, likely because of weak interactive effects of those factors on resource availability (e.g., root biomass). Plant diversity effects likely were large because high plant diversity promoted the accumulation of soil organic matter in the site’s sandy, organic matter–poor soils. Plant diversity effects were not explained by the presence of certain plant functional groups. Our results underline the prime importance of plant diversity loss cascading to soil food webs (density and diversity of soil organisms) and functions. Because the present results suggest prevailing plant diversity effects and few interactions with other global change drivers, protecting plant diversity may be of high priority to maintain the biodiversity and functioning of soils in a changing world.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1217382110

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The underlying relationships between plant diversity and soil carbon storage, soil microbial biomass and activity, and root biomass have been reported in several independent experimental settings, providing some evidence that the proposed links are of general significance.

    “Although we cannot rule out that the proposed mechanisms are particularly pronounced at the field site of The Jena Experiment, the underlying relationships between plant diversity and soil carbon storage 17,24 , soil microbial biomass and activity 37,45,46 , and root biomass 24,47 have been reported in several independent experimental settings providing some evidence that the proposed links are of”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eisenhauer, N., Dobies, T., Cesarz, S., Hobbie, S. E., Meyer, R. J., Worm, K., & Reich, P. B.
Affiliations
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
  • Poznań University of Life Sciences (PL)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Departments of bForest Resources and
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-04
Volume
110
Issue
17
Pages
6889-6894
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2145489220
Cited by
315
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3
FWCI
25.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0322057, 0620652, 0080382, 0716587, 9411972)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (FG0296ER62291, DE‐FG02‐, FC02-06ER64158)
  • Michigan Technological University
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Ei 862/1, 862/2, Ei 862/2)
  • Office of Science (DEFC0206ER64158)
  • Division of Environmental Biology (9411972, 0620652, 0322057, 0080382)
  • Biological and Environmental Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Keywords
plant diversity, soil food webs, elevated CO2, nitrogen deposition, global change, bottom-up effects, soil microbes, nematodes, microarthropods, soil organic matter, root biomass, plant functional groups, biodiversity loss, grassland, long-term experiment
MeSH terms
Carbon Dioxide, Poaceae, Minnesota, Nitrogen, Soil, Linear Models, Biomass, Food Chain, Biodiversity, Climate Change

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