The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant Phenotypic Plasticity Belowground: A Phylogenetic Perspective on Root Foraging Trade‐Offs
Open accessAbstract
Many plants proliferate roots in nutrient patches, presumably increasing nutrient uptake and plant fitness. Nutrient heterogeneity has been hypothesized to maintain community diversity because of a trade-off between the spatial extent over which plants forage (foraging scale) and their ability to proliferate roots precisely in nutrient patches (foraging precision). Empirical support for this hypothesis has been mixed, and some authors have suggested that interspecific differences in relative growth rate may be confounded with measurements of foraging precision. We collected previously published data from numerous studies of root foraging ability (foraging precision, scale, response to heterogeneity, and relative growth rate) and phylogenetic relationships for >100 plant species to test these hypotheses using comparative methods. Root foraging precision was phylogenetically and taxonomically conserved. Using a historical and phylogenetically independent contrast correlations, we found no evidence of a root foraging scale-precision trade-off, mixed support for a relative growth rate-precision relationship, and no support for the widespread assumption that foraging precision increases the benefit gained from growth in heterogeneous soil. Our understanding of the impacts of plant foraging precision and soil heterogeneity on plants and communities is less advanced than commonly believed, and we suggest several areas in which further research is needed.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Cited by
Plant root growth, architecture and function
Hodge, A., Berta, G., Doussan, C., Merchan, F., & Crespi, M. (2009) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-009-9929-9 · Cited by 799
Leading dimensions in absorptive root trait variation across 96 subtropical forest species
Kong, D., Ma, C., Zhang, Q., Li, L., Chen, X., Zeng, H., & Guo, D. (2014) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12842 · Cited by 577
Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?
Cahill, J. F., Kembel, S. W., Lamb, E. G., & Keddy, P. A. (2008) · Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2007.10.001 · Cited by 356
Self-citationPlants Integrate Information About Nutrients and Neighbors
Cahill, J. F., McNickle, G. G., Haag, J. J., Lamb, E. G., Nyanumba, S. M., & St. Clair, C. C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1189736 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Kembel, S. W., & Cahill Jr., J. F.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 166
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 216-230
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2118028849
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.53
- 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: Plant Phenotypic Plasticity Belowground: A Phylogenetic Perspective on Root Foraging Trade‐Offs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/431287
- The paper
- Kembel, S. W., & Cahill Jr., J. F. (2005). Plant Phenotypic Plasticity Belowground: A Phylogenetic Perspective on Root Foraging Trade‐Offs. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/431287
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.