Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 178 of the 178 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clarifying the evidence for microbial‐ and plant‐derived soil organic matter, and the path toward a more quantitative understanding

Whalen, Emily D., Grandy, A. Stuart, Sokol, Noah W., Keiluweit, Marco, Ernakovich, Jessica, Smith, Richard G., Frey, Serita D.·2022·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Predicting and mitigating changes in soil carbon (C) stocks under global change requires a coherent understanding of the factors regulating soil organic matter (SOM) formation and persistence, including knowledge of the direct sources of SOM (plants vs. microbes). In recent years, conceptual models of SOM formation have emphasized the primacy of microbial‐derived organic matter inputs, proposing that microbial physiological traits (e.g., growth efficiency) are dominant controls on SOM quantity. However, recent quantitative studies have challenged this view, suggesting that plants make larger direct contributions to SOM than is currently recognized by this paradigm. In this review, we attempt to reconcile these perspectives by highlighting that variation across estimates of plant‐ versus microbial‐derived SOM may arise in part from methodological limitations. We show that all major methods used to estimate plant versus microbial contributions to SOM have substantial shortcomings, highlighting the uncertainty in our current quantitative estimates. We demonstrate that there is significant overlap in the chemical signatures of compounds produced by microbes, plant roots, and through the extracellular decomposition of plant litter, which introduces uncertainty into the use of common biomarkers for parsing plant‐ and microbial‐derived SOM, especially in the mineral‐associated organic matter (MAOM) fraction. Although the studies that we review have contributed to a deeper understanding of microbial contributions to SOM, limitations with current methods constrain quantitative estimates. In light of recent advances, we suggest that now is a critical time to re‐evaluate long‐standing methods, clearly define their limitations, and develop a strategic plan for improving the quantification of plant‐ and microbial‐derived SOM. From our synthesis, we outline key questions and challenges for future research on the mechanisms of SOM formation and stabilization from plant and microbial pathways.

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.16413

Cites

178 of 178 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 178 references

Metadata

Authors
Whalen, E. D., Grandy, A. S., Sokol, N. W., Keiluweit, M., Ernakovich, J., Smith, R. G., & Frey, S. D.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-09-15
Volume
28
Issue
24
Pages
7167-7185
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W4293770982
Cited by
401
References
178
FWCI
39.09
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: Clarifying the evidence for microbial‐ and plant‐derived soil organic matter, and the path toward a more quantitative understanding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.16413
The paper
Whalen, E. D., Grandy, A. S., Sokol, N. W., Keiluweit, M., Ernakovich, J., Smith, R. G., & Frey, S. D. (2022). Clarifying the evidence for microbial‐ and plant‐derived soil organic matter, and the path toward a more quantitative understanding. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16413

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.