The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analysis of context‐dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi
Abstract
Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 394–407 Mycorrhizal fungi influence plant growth, local biodiversity and ecosystem function. Effects of the symbiosis on plants span the continuum from mutualism to parasitism. We sought to understand this variation in symbiotic function using meta‐analysis with information theory‐based model selection to assess the relative importance of factors in five categories: (1) identity of the host plant and its functional characteristics, (2) identity and type of mycorrhizal fungi (arbuscular mycorrhizal vs. ectomycorrhizal), (3) soil fertility, (4) biotic complexity of the soil and (5) experimental location (laboratory vs. field). Across most subsets of the data, host plant functional group and N‐fertilization were surprisingly much more important in predicting plant responses to mycorrhizal inoculation (‘plant response’) than other factors. Non‐N‐fixing forbs and woody plants and C 4 grasses responded more positively to mycorrhizal inoculation than plants with N‐fixing bacterial symbionts and C 3 grasses. In laboratory studies of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis, plant response was more positive when the soil community was more complex. Univariate analyses supported the hypothesis that plant response is most positive when plants are P‐limited rather than N‐limited. These results emphasize that mycorrhizal function depends on both abiotic and biotic context, and have implications for plant community theory and restoration ecology.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
(2008) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-370526-6.x5001-6 · Cited by 7,431
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
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 1×
“Moreover, log response ratios have particularly favourable statistical properties for meta-analysis (Hedges et al. 1999).”
BackgroundRebuilding community ecology from functional traits
MCGILL, B., ENQUIST, B., WEIHER, E., & WESTOBY, M. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.002 · Cited by 4,631
The Mineral Nutrition of Wild Plants
Chapin, F. S. (1980) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001313 · Cited by 4,219
Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity
van der Heijden, M. G. A., Klironomos, J. N., Ursic, M., Moutoglis, P., Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., & Sanders, I. R. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/23932 · Cited by 3,553
Self-citationThe Vegetation N:P Ratio: a New Tool to Detect the Nature of Nutrient Limitation
Koerselman, W., & Meuleman, A. F. M. (1996) · The Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.2307/2404783 · Cited by 2,131
Functioning of mycorrhizal associations along the mutualism–parasitism continuum*
JOHNSON, N. C., GRAHAM, J., & SMITH, F. A. (1997) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1997.00729.x · Cited by 2,020
Self-citation
Cited by
Hardoim, P. R., van Overbeek, L. S., Berg, G., Pirttilä, A. M., Compant, S., Campisano, A., Döring, M., & Sessitsch, A. (2015) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00050-14 · Cited by 2,708
Freschet, G. T., Pagès, L., Iversen, C. M., Comas, L. H., Rewald, B., Roumet, C., Klimešová, J., Zadworny, M., Poorter, H., Postma, J. A., et al. (2021) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.17572 · Cited by 668
Fungal traits that drive ecosystem dynamics on land
Treseder, K. K., & Lennon, J. T. (2015) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00001-15 · Cited by 625
Biodiversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecosystem function
Powell, J. R., & Rillig, M. C. (2018) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.15119 · Cited by 508
Leifheit, E. F., Veresoglou, S. D., Lehmann, A., Morris, E. K., & Rillig, M. C. (2014) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1899-2 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoeksema, J. D., Chaudhary, V. B., Gehring, C. A., Johnson, N. C., Karst, J., Koide, R. T., Pringle, A., Zabinski, C., Bever, J. D., Moore, J. C., Wilson, G. W. T., Klironomos, J. N., & Umbanhowar, J.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-19
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 394-407
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2167404919
- Cited by
- 1,199
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 50.57
- 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: A meta‐analysis of context‐dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x
- The paper
- Hoeksema, J. D., Chaudhary, V. B., Gehring, C. A., Johnson, N. C., Karst, J., Koide, R. T., Pringle, A., Zabinski, C., Bever, J. D., Moore, J. C., Wilson, G. W. T., Klironomos, J. N., & Umbanhowar, J. (2010). A meta‐analysis of context‐dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.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.
