The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A general framework for quantitatively assessing ecological stochasticity
Open accessAbstract
Significance: An ecological community is a dynamic complex system with a myriad of interacting species, which are controlled by various scale-dependent deterministic and stochastic forces. With rapid advances in genomics technologies, categorizing biological diversity, particularly microbial diversity, becomes relatively easy, but the great challenge is to disentangle the mechanisms controlling biological diversity. The general null model-based framework developed in this study provides an effective and robust tool to ecologists for quantitatively assessing ecological stochasticity. By highlighting the caveats such as model selection, similarity metrics, and spatial scales, this study provides guidance for appropriate use of null model-based approaches for examining community assembly processes. Although this framework was tested with microbial data, it should also be applicable to plant and animal ecology.
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
The Theory of Island Biogeography
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (2001) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400881376 · Cited by 12,632
The Theory of Island Biogeography
Kirkby, M. J., MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1968) · The Geographical Journal · doi:10.2307/1796430 · Cited by 11,581
A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.
Lin, L. I.-K. (1989) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532051 · Cited by 8,785
The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography
Jetschke, G. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1771:tuntob]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 6,993
The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture
Levin, S. A. (1992) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1941447 · Cited by 6,792
Phylogenies and Community Ecology
Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A., & Donoghue, M. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 · Cited by 4,609
The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update
Afgan, E., Baker, D., Batut, B., van den Beek, M., Bouvier, D., Čech, M., Chilton, J., Clements, D., Coraor, N., Grüning, B. A., et al. (2018) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gky379 · Cited by 3,662
Conceptual Synthesis in Community Ecology
Vellend, M. (2010) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/652373 · Cited by 2,832
Stochastic Community Assembly: Does It Matter in Microbial Ecology?
Zhou, J., & Ning, D. (2017) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00002-17 · Cited by 2,773
Self-citationQuantifying community assembly processes and identifying features that impose them
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Fredrickson, J. K., Chen, X., Kennedy, D. W., Murray, C. J., Rockhold, M. L., & Konopka, A. (2013) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2013.93 · Cited by 2,535
Metadata
- Authors
- Ning, D., Deng, Y., Tiedje, J. M., & Zhou, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2019-08-07
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 34
- Pages
- 16892-16898
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2966514282
- Cited by
- 1,255
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 49.03
- 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: A general framework for quantitatively assessing ecological stochasticity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1904623116
- The paper
- Ning, D., Deng, Y., Tiedje, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2019). A general framework for quantitatively assessing ecological stochasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904623116
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.
