The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisiting the ‘Gadgil effect’: do interguild fungal interactions control carbon cycling in forest soils?
Abstract
Summary: In forest ecosystems, ectomycorrhizal and saprotrophic fungi play a central role in the breakdown of soil organic matter (SOM). Competition between these two fungal guilds has long been hypothesized to lead to suppression of decomposition rates, a phenomenon known as the ‘Gadgil effect’. In this review, we examine the documentation, generality, and potential mechanisms involved in the ‘Gadgil effect’. We find that the influence of ectomycorrhizal fungi on litter and SOM decomposition is much more variable than previously recognized. To explain the inconsistency in size and direction of the ‘Gadgil effect’, we argue that a better understanding of underlying mechanisms is required. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of the primary mechanisms proposed to date and how using different experimental methods (trenching, girdling, microcosms), as well as considering different temporal and spatial scales, could influence the conclusions drawn about this phenomenon. Finally, we suggest that combining new research tools such as high‐throughput sequencing with experiments utilizing natural environmental gradients will significantly deepen our understanding of the ‘Gadgil effect’ and its consequences on forest soil carbon and nutrient cycling. ContentsSummary1382I.Introduction1382II.Documenting the ‘Gadgil effect’1383III.Generality of the ‘Gadgil effect’1383IV.Mechanisms of the ‘Gadgil effect’1384V.Priming and the ‘Gadgil effect’1386VI.Is the ‘Gadgil effect’ context‐dependent?1387VII.Future research on the ‘Gadgil effect’1389VIII.Conclusions1391Acknowledgements1391References1391
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
Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property
Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kögel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10386 · Cited by 6,057
Rebuilding 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
Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems
Swift, M. J., Heal, O. W., & Anderson, J. M. (1979) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520407114 · Cited by 4,582
FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild
Nguyen, N. H., Song, Z., Bates, S. T., Branco, S., Tedersoo, L., Menke, J., Schilling, J. S., & Kennedy, P. G. (2016) · Fungal Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006 · Cited by 4,530
Self-citationSoil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change
Lal, R. (2004) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032 · Cited by 3,936
Nitrogen and Lignin Control of Hardwood Leaf Litter Decomposition Dynamics
Melillo, J. M., Aber, J. D., & Muratore, J. F. (1982) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1936780 · Cited by 2,641
Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress
Callaway, R. M., Brooker, R. W., Choler, P., Kikvidze, Z., Lortie, C. J., Michalet, R., Paolini, L., Pugnaire, F. I., Newingham, B., Aschehoug, E. T., et al. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature00812 · Cited by 1,874
Reconstructing the early evolution of Fungi using a six-gene phylogeny
James, T. Y., Kauff, F., Schoch, C. L., Matheny, P. B., Hofstetter, V., Cox, C. J., Celio, G., Gueidan, C., Fraker, E., Miadlikowska, J., et al. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05110 · Cited by 1,815
The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue‐Gray Gnatcatcher
Root, R. B. (1967) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942327 · Cited by 1,806
Read, D. J. (1991) · Experientia · doi:10.1007/bf01972080 · Cited by 1,744
Cited by
Life and death in the soil microbiome: how ecological processes influence biogeochemistry
Sokol, N. W., Slessarev, E., Marschmann, G. L., Nicolas, A., Blazewicz, S. J., Brodie, E. L., Firestone, M. K., Foley, M. M., Hestrin, R., Hungate, B. A., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-022-00695-z · Cited by 1,179
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks
Soudzilovskaia, N. A., van Bodegom, P. M., Terrer, C., Zelfde, M. V., McCallum, I., Luke McCormack, M., Fisher, J. B., Brundrett, M. C., de Sá, N. C., & Tedersoo, L. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13019-2 · Cited by 341
Lin, G., McCormack, M. L., Ma, C., & Guo, D. (2017) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.14206 · Cited by 309
Metadata
- Authors
- Fernandez, C. W., & Kennedy, P. G.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-09-14
- Volume
- 209
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1382-1394
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2101110295
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 103
- FWCI
- 25.93
- 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: Revisiting the ‘Gadgil effect’: do interguild fungal interactions control carbon cycling in forest soils? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.13648
- The paper
- Fernandez, C. W., & Kennedy, P. G. (2016). Revisiting the ‘Gadgil effect’: do interguild fungal interactions control carbon cycling in forest soils? New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13648
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.
