Cited by 826Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies

Soil aggregation and carbon sequestration are tightly correlated with the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: results from long‐term field experiments

Wilson, Gail W. T., Rice, Charles W., Rillig, Matthias C., Springer, Adam, Hartnett, David C.·2009·Ecology Letters

Abstract

We examined the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in ecosystems using soil aggregate stability and C and N storage as representative ecosystem processes. We utilized a wide gradient in AMF abundance, obtained through long‐term (17 and 6 years) large‐scale field manipulations. Burning and N‐fertilization increased soil AMF hyphae, glomalin‐related soil protein (GRSP) pools and water‐stable macroaggregates while fungicide applications reduced AMF hyphae, GRSP and water‐stable macroaggregates. We found that AMF abundance was a surprisingly dominant factor explaining the vast majority of variability in soil aggregation. This experimental field study, involving long‐term diverse management practices of native multispecies prairie communities, invariably showed a close positive correlation between AMF hyphal abundance and soil aggregation, and C and N sequestration. This highly significant linear correlation suggests there are serious consequences to the loss of AMF from ecosystems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01303.x

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, G. W. T., Rice, C. W., Rillig, M. C., Springer, A., & Hartnett, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Oklahoma State University (US)
  • Kansas State University (US)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Gail W. T.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-04-06
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
452-461
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2087660544
Cited by
826
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 34
FWCI
33.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, soil aggregation, carbon sequestration, nitrogen sequestration, glomalin-related soil protein, water-stable macroaggregates, soil carbon storage, soil nitrogen storage, prescribed burning, nitrogen fertilization, fungicide effects, native prairie, long-term field experiment
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Carbon, Kansas, Nitrogen, Soil, Soil Microbiology, Ecosystem, Biomass, Mycorrhizae

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