The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies
Open accessAbstract
• Numerous field studies have measured mycorrhizal dynamics under additions of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), or atmospheric CO2 to test the hypothesis that plants should invest in mycorrhizal fungi when soil nutrients are limiting. • Here meta-analyses were used to integrate nutrient responses across independent field-based studies. Responses were compared between ecto- and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and among fertilizer types, methods of measurement, biomes, and lead investigators. Relationships between degree of response and study length, fertilization rates, total amounts of nutrients applied, and numbers of replicates were also tested. • Across studies, mycorrhizal abundance decreased 15% under N fertilization and 32% under P fertilization. Elevated CO2 elicited a 47% increase. Nitrogen effects varied significantly among studies, and P effects varied significantly among lead investigators. Most other factors did not affect mycorrhizal responses. • These results support the plant investment hypothesis, and suggest that global standing stocks of mycorrhizal fungi may increase substantially under elevated CO2 but decline moderately under P additions. Effects of N deposition may be difficult to predict for individual ecosystems, with a slightly negative influence overall.
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
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×
“of means, standard deviations and replicate numbers for controls and treatments (Hedges et al., 1999).”
BackgroundMeta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution
Arnqvist, G., & Wooster, D. (1995) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(00)89073-4 · Cited by 570
Cited by
Nitrogen additions and microbial biomass: a meta-analysis of ecosystem studies
Treseder, K. K. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01230.x · Cited by 1,607
Self-citationKookana, R. S., Sarmah, A. K., Van Zwieten, L., Krull, E., & Singh, B. (2011) · Advances in agronomy · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385538-1.00003-2 · Cited by 712
Global negative effects of nitrogen deposition on soil microbes
Zhang, T., Chen, H. Y. H., & Ruan, H. (2018) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/s41396-018-0096-y · Cited by 707
Högberg, M. N., Högberg, P., & Myrold, D. D. (2006) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s00442-006-0562-5 · Cited by 699
A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2
Terrer, C., Phillips, R. P., Hungate, B. A., Rosende, J., Pett-Ridge, J., Craig, M. E., van Groenigen, K. J., Keenan, T. F., Sulman, B. N., Stocker, B. D., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03306-8 · Cited by 690
Metadata
- Authors
- Treseder, K. K.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-07-22
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 347-355
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2145318817
- Cited by
- 1,246
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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 mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x
- The paper
- Treseder, K. K. (2004). A meta‐analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.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.