The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When and where plant‐soil feedback may promote plant coexistence: a meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Plant‐soil feedback (PSF) theory provides a powerful framework for understanding plant dynamics by integrating growth assays into predictions of whether soil communities stabilise plant–plant interactions. However, we lack a comprehensive view of the likelihood of feedback‐driven coexistence, partly because of a failure to analyse pairwise PSF, the metric directly linked to plant species coexistence. Here, we determine the relative importance of plant evolutionary history, traits, and environmental factors for coexistence through PSF using a meta‐analysis of 1038 pairwise PSF measures. Consistent with eco‐evolutionary predictions, feedback is more likely to mediate coexistence for pairs of plant species (1) associating with similar guilds of mycorrhizal fungi, (2) of increasing phylogenetic distance, and (3) interacting with native microbes. We also found evidence for a primary role of pathogens in feedback‐mediated coexistence. By combining results over several independent studies, our results confirm that PSF may play a key role in plant species coexistence, species invasion, and the phylogenetic diversification of plant communities.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., & Eliceiri, K. W. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2089 · Cited by 64,638
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity
Chesson, P. (2000) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343 · Cited by 6,645
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
The Limiting Similarity, Convergence, and Divergence of Coexisting Species
Macarthur, R., & Levins, R. (1967) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282505 · Cited by 4,611
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
Resource Competition and Community Structure.
Harper, J. L., & Tilman, D. (1983) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2259756 · Cited by 4,180
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling
Hijmans, R. J. (2010) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.raster · Cited by 2,907
Metadata
- Authors
- Crawford, K. M., Bauer, J. T., Comita, L. S., Eppinga, M. B., Johnson, D. J., Mangan, S. A., Queenborough, S. A., Strand, A. E., Suding, K. N., Umbanhowar, J., & Bever, J. D.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-05-31
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1274-1284
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2947369736
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 83
- FWCI
- 24.08
- 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: When and where plant‐soil feedback may promote plant coexistence: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ele.13278
- The paper
- Crawford, K. M., Bauer, J. T., Comita, L. S., Eppinga, M. B., Johnson, D. J., Mangan, S. A., Queenborough, S. A., Strand, A. E., Suding, K. N., Umbanhowar, J., & Bever, J. D. (2019). When and where plant‐soil feedback may promote plant coexistence: a meta‐analysis. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13278
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.