The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Similar below‐ground carbon cycling dynamics but contrasting modes of nitrogen cycling between arbuscular mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal forests
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Compared with ectomycorrhizal (ECM) forests, arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) forests are hypothesized to have higher carbon (C) cycling rates and a more open nitrogen (N) cycle. To test this hypothesis, we synthesized 645 observations, including 22 variables related to below‐ground C and N dynamics from 100 sites, where AM and ECM forests co‐occurred at the same site. Leaf litter quality was lower in ECM than in AM trees, leading to greater forest floor C stocks in ECM forests. By contrast, AM forests had significantly higher mineral soil C concentrations, and this result was strongly mediated by plant traits and climate. No significant differences were found between AM and ECM forests in C fluxes and labile C concentrations. Furthermore, inorganic N concentrations, net N mineralization and nitrification rates were all higher in AM than in ECM forests, indicating ‘mineral’ N economy in AM but ‘organic’ N economy in ECM trees. AM and ECM forests show systematic differences in mineral vs organic N cycling, and thus mycorrhizal type may be useful in predicting how different tree species respond to multiple environmental change factors. By contrast, mycorrhizal type alone cannot reliably predict below‐ground C dynamics without considering plant traits and climate.
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
Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., & Paul, E. (2013) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12113 · Cited by 3,552
Poorter, H., Niklas, K. J., Reich, P. B., Oleksyn, J., Poot, P., & Mommer, L. (2012) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x · Cited by 3,163
Cornwell, W. K., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Amatangelo, K., Dorrepaal, E., Eviner, V. T., Godoy, O., Hobbie, S. E., Hoorens, B., Kurokawa, H., Pérez‐Harguindeguy, N., et al. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x · Cited by 2,855
C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?
Cleveland, C. C., & Liptzin, D. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0 · Cited by 2,365
Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions
GRUEBER, C. E., NAKAGAWA, S., LAWS, R. J., & JAMIESON, I. G. (2011) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02210.x · Cited by 2,263
Mycorrhizal ecology and evolution: the past, the present, and the future
van der Heijden, M. G. A., Martin, F. M., Selosse, M., & Sanders, I. R. (2015) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13288 · Cited by 2,205
Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants
Wang, B., & Qiu, Y.-L. (2006) · Mycorrhiza · doi:10.1007/s00572-005-0033-6 · Cited by 1,920
Read, D. J. (1991) · Experientia · doi:10.1007/bf01972080 · Cited by 1,744
Mycorrhizas and nutrient cycling in ecosystems – a journey towards relevance?
Read, D. J., & Perez‐Moreno, J. (2003) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00704.x · Cited by 1,613
Cited by
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
Self-citationGlobal 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
Global imprint of mycorrhizal fungi on whole-plant nutrient economics
Averill, C., Bhatnagar, J. M., Dietze, M. C., Pearse, W. D., & Kivlin, S. N. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1906655116 · Cited by 312
Contrasting dynamics and trait controls in first-order root compared with leaf litter decomposition
Sun, T., Hobbie, S. E., Berg, B., Zhang, H., Wang, Q., Wang, Z., & Hättenschwiler, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1716595115 · Cited by 288
Hüblová, L., & Frouz, J. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112567 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, G., McCormack, M. L., Ma, C., & Guo, D.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-09-28
- Volume
- 213
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1440-1451
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2524260137
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 20.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Similar below‐ground carbon cycling dynamics but contrasting modes of nitrogen cycling between arbuscular mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal forests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.14206
- The paper
- Lin, G., McCormack, M. L., Ma, C., & Guo, D. (2017). Similar below‐ground carbon cycling dynamics but contrasting modes of nitrogen cycling between arbuscular mycorrhizal and ectomycorrhizal forests. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14206
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.
