Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 723

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species

Open access
Coleman‐Derr, Devin, Desgarennes, Damaris, Fonseca‐Garcia, Citlali, Gross, Stephen, Clingenpeel, Scott, Woyke, Tanja, North, Gretchen, Visel, Axel, Partida‐Martinez, Laila P., Tringe, Susannah G.·2016·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Desert plants are hypothesized to survive the environmental stress inherent to these regions in part thanks to symbioses with microorganisms, and yet these microbial species, the communities they form, and the forces that influence them are poorly understood. Here we report the first comprehensive investigation of the microbial communities associated with species of Agave, which are native to semiarid and arid regions of Central and North America and are emerging as biofuel feedstocks. We examined prokaryotic and fungal communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere, leaf and root endosphere, as well as proximal and distal soil samples from cultivated and native agaves, through Illumina amplicon sequencing. Phylogenetic profiling revealed that the composition of prokaryotic communities was primarily determined by the plant compartment, whereas the composition of fungal communities was mainly influenced by the biogeography of the host species. Cultivated A. tequilana exhibited lower levels of prokaryotic diversity compared with native agaves, although no differences in microbial diversity were found in the endosphere. Agaves shared core prokaryotic and fungal taxa known to promote plant growth and confer tolerance to abiotic stress, which suggests common principles underpinning Agave–microbe interactions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nph.13697

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 723

Metadata

Authors
Coleman‐Derr, D., Desgarennes, D., Fonseca‐Garcia, C., Gross, S., Clingenpeel, S., Woyke, T., North, G., Visel, A., Partida‐Martinez, L. P., & Tringe, S. G.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-15
Volume
209
Issue
2
Pages
798-811
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2147110714
Cited by
723
References
2
FWCI
46.30
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: Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.13697
The paper
Coleman‐Derr, D., Desgarennes, D., Fonseca‐Garcia, C., Gross, S., Clingenpeel, S., Woyke, T., North, G., Visel, A., Partida‐Martinez, L. P., & Tringe, S. G. (2016). Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13697

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.