The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta‐analytical review
Open accessAbstract
Plants can change soil biology, chemistry and structure in ways that alter subsequent plant growth. This process, referred to as plant–soil feedback (PSF), has been suggested to provide mechanisms for plant diversity, succession and invasion. Here we use three meta‐analytical models: a mixed model and two Bayes models, one correcting for sampling dependence and one correcting for sampling and hierarchical dependence (delta‐splitting model) to test these hypotheses. All three models showed that PSFs have medium to large negative effects on plant growth, and especially grass growth, the life form for which we had the most data. This supports the hypothesis that PSFs, through negative frequency dependence, maintain plant diversity, especially in grasslands. PSFs were also large and negative for annuals and natives, but the delta‐splitting model indicated that more studies are needed for these results to be conclusive. Our results support the hypotheses that PSFs encourage successional replacements and plant invasions. Most studies were performed using monocultures of grassland species in greenhouse conditions. Future research should examine PSFs in plant communities, non‐grassland systems and field conditions.
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
Cited by
Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges
van der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., Bever, J. D., Bezemer, T. M., Casper, B. B., Fukami, T., Kardol, P., Klironomos, J. N., Kulmatiski, A., Schweitzer, J. A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12054 · Cited by 1,758
Self-citationA Meta‐Analytic Review of Corridor Effectiveness
GILBERT‐NORTON, L., WILSON, R., STEVENS, J. R., & BEARD, K. H. (2010) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x · Cited by 608
Self-citationPugnaire, F. I., Morillo, J. A., Peñuelas, J., Reich, P. B., Bardgett, R. D., Gaxiola, A., Wardle, D. A., & van der Putten, W. H. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz1834 · Cited by 513
Maintenance of Plant Species Diversity by Pathogens
Bever, J. D., Mangan, S. A., & Alexander, H. M. (2015) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054306 · Cited by 482
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology
Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2014) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12224 · Cited by 460
Metadata
- Authors
- Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., Stevens, J. R., & Cobbold, S. M.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-08-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 980-992
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2165775575
- Cited by
- 983
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 34.08
- 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: Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta‐analytical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x
- The paper
- Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., Stevens, J. R., & Cobbold, S. M. (2008). Plant–soil feedbacks: a meta‐analytical review. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01209.x
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.