Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 564

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Microbial carbon limitation: The need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling

Open access
Soong, Jennifer L., Fuchslueger, Lucia, Marañon‐Jimenez, Sara, Torn, Margaret S., Janssens, Ivan A., Penuelas, Josep, Richter, Andreas·2020·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated that fertilization with nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium increases plant productivity in both natural and managed ecosystems, demonstrating that primary productivity is nutrient limited in most terrestrial ecosystems. In contrast, it has been demonstrated that heterotrophic microbial communities in soil are primarily limited by organic carbon or energy. While this concept of contrasting limitations, that is, microbial carbon and plant nutrient limitation, is based on strong evidence that we review in this paper, it is often ignored in discussions of ecosystem response to global environment changes. The plant‐centric perspective has equated plant nutrient limitations with those of whole ecosystems, thereby ignoring the important role of the heterotrophs responsible for soil decomposition in driving ecosystem carbon storage. To truly integrate carbon and nutrient cycles in ecosystem science, we must account for the fact that while plant productivity may be nutrient limited, the secondary productivity by heterotrophic communities is inherently carbon limited. Ecosystem carbon cycling integrates the independent physiological responses of its individual components, as well as tightly coupled exchanges between autotrophs and heterotrophs. To the extent that the interacting autotrophic and heterotrophic processes are controlled by organisms that are limited by nutrient versus carbon accessibility, respectively, we propose that ecosystems by definition cannot be ‘limited’ by nutrients or carbon alone. Here, we outline how models aimed at predicting non‐steady state ecosystem responses over time can benefit from dissecting ecosystems into the organismal components and their inherent limitations to better represent plant–microbe interactions in coupled carbon and nutrient models.

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/gcb.14962

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 564

Metadata

Authors
Soong, J. L., Fuchslueger, L., Marañon‐Jimenez, S., Torn, M. S., Janssens, I. A., Penuelas, J., & Richter, A.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01-25
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
1953-1961
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2996335903
Cited by
564
References
6
FWCI
30.63
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: Microbial carbon limitation: The need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.14962
The paper
Soong, J. L., Fuchslueger, L., Marañon‐Jimenez, S., Torn, M. S., Janssens, I. A., Penuelas, J., & Richter, A. (2020). Microbial carbon limitation: The need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14962

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.