Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 236

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consequences of plant–soil feedbacks in invasion

Open access
Suding, Katharine N., Stanley Harpole, William, Fukami, Tadashi, Kulmatiski, Andrew, MacDougall, Andrew S., Stein, Claudia, van der Putten, Wim H.·2013·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Plant species can influence soil biota, which in turn can influence the relative performance of plant species. These plant–soil feedbacks (PSF s) have been hypothesized to affect many community‐level dynamics including species coexistence, dominance and invasion. The importance of PSF s in exotic species invasion, although widely hypothesized, has been difficult to determine because invader establishment necessarily precedes invader‐mediated PSF s. Here, we combine a spatial simulation model of invasion that incorporates PSF s with a meta‐analysis that synthesizes published case studies describing feedbacks between pairs of native and exotic species. While our spatial model confirmed the link between positive soil feedbacks (‘home’ advantage) for exotic species and exotic species spread, results were dependent on the initial abundance of the exotic species and the equivalence of dispersal and life history characteristics between exotic and native species. The meta‐analysis of 52 native–exotic pairwise feedback comparisons in 22 studies synthesized measures of native and exotic performance in soils conditioned by native and exotic species. The analysis indicated that the growth responses of native species were often greater in soil conditioned by native species than in soil conditioned exotic species (a ‘home’ advantage). The growth responses of exotic species were variable and not consistently related to species soil‐conditioning effects. Synthesis. Overlaying empirical estimates of pairwise PSF s with spatial simulations, we conclude that the empirically measured PSF s between native and exotic plant species are often not consistent with predictions of the spread of exotic species and mono‐dominance. This is particularly the case when exotic species are initially rare and share similar dispersal and average fitness characteristics with native species. However, disturbance and other processes that increase the abundance of exotic species as well as the inclusion of species dispersal and life history differences can interact with PSF effects to explain the spread of invasive species.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2745.12057

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 236

Metadata

Authors
Suding, K. N., Stanley Harpole, W., Fukami, T., Kulmatiski, A., MacDougall, A. S., Stein, C., & van der Putten, W. H.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-22
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
298-308
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2118841549
Cited by
236
References
1
FWCI
16.92
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: Consequences of plant–soil feedbacks in invasion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2745.12057
The paper
Suding, K. N., Stanley Harpole, W., Fukami, T., Kulmatiski, A., MacDougall, A. S., Stein, C., & van der Putten, W. H. (2013). Consequences of plant–soil feedbacks in invasion. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12057

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.