The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Changes in plant inputs alter soil carbon and microbial communities in forest ecosystems
Abstract
Global changes can alter plant inputs from both above‐ and belowground, which, thus, may differently affect soil carbon and microbial communities. However, the general patterns of how plant input changes affect them in forests remain unclear. By conducting a meta‐analysis of 3193 observations from 166 experiments worldwide, we found that alterations in aboveground litter and/or root inputs had profound effects on soil carbon and microbial communities in forest ecosystems. Litter addition stimulated soil organic carbon (SOC) pools and microbial biomass, whereas removal of litter, roots or both (no inputs) decreased them. The increased SOC under litter addition suggested that aboveground litter inputs benefit SOC sequestration despite accelerated decomposition. Unlike root removal, litter alterations and no inputs altered particulate organic carbon, whereas all detrital treatments did not significantly change mineral‐associated organic carbon. In addition, detrital treatments contrastingly altered soil microbial community, with litter addition or removal shifting it toward fungi, whereas root removal shifting it toward bacteria. Furthermore, the responses of soil carbon and microbial biomass to litter alterations positively correlated with litter input rate and total litter input, suggesting that litter input quantity is a critical controller of belowground processes. Taken together, these findings provide critical insights into understanding how altered plant productivity and allocation affects soil carbon cycling, microbial communities and functioning of forest ecosystems under global changes. Future studies can take full advantage of the existing plant detritus experiments and should focus on the relative roles of litter and roots in forming SOC and its fractions.
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
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
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
A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., Phillips, O. L., Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S. L., Canadell, J. G., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1201609 · Cited by 8,458
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793 · cited 2×
“To determine whether detrital treatments had significant effects on the target variables, we applied the mixed- effects model with “experiment” as a random factor to calculate the weighted RR and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs; Borenstein et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2020).”
MethodPersistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property
Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kögel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10386 · Cited by 6,057
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 2×
“We quantified the effects of detrital treatments on the studied variables using the meta- analysis approach (Hedges et al., 1999).”
BackgroundMethodStabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils
Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., & Paustian, K. (2002) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1016125726789 · Cited by 4,633
The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage
Liang, C., Schimel, J. P., & Jastrow, J. D. (2017) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.105 · Cited by 3,320
Lavallee, J. M., Soong, J. L., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2020) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14859 · Cited by 2,477
Cited by
Wang, X., Feng, J., Ao, G., Qin, W., Han, M., Shen, Y., Liu, M., Chen, Y., & Zhu, B. (2023) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.108982 · Cited by 282
Self-citationYang, Y., Chen, X., Liu, L., Li, T., Dou, Y., Qiao, J., Wang, Y., An, S., & Chang, S. X. (2022) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16361 · Cited by 279
Mäkipää, R., Abramoff, R., Adamczyk, B., Baldy, V., Biryol, C., Bosela, M., Casals, P., Curiel Yuste, J., Dondini, M., Filipek, S., et al. (2023) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120637 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Feng, J., He, K., Zhang, Q., Han, M., & Zhu, B.
- Venue
- Global Change Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-02-10
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 3426-3440
- ISSN
- 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2486
- OpenAlex
- W4210274958
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 77
- FWCI
- 41.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Changes in plant inputs alter soil carbon and microbial communities in forest ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.16107
- The paper
- Feng, J., He, K., Zhang, Q., Han, M., & Zhu, B. (2022). Changes in plant inputs alter soil carbon and microbial communities in forest ecosystems. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16107
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.