The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon
Abstract
Summary: Soil organic carbon (SOC) is primarily formed from plant inputs, but the relative carbon (C) contributions from living root inputs (i.e. rhizodeposits) vs litter inputs (i.e. root + shoot litter) are poorly understood. Recent theory suggests that living root inputs exert a disproportionate influence on SOC formation, but few field studies have explicitly tested this by separately tracking living root vs litter inputs as they move through the soil food web and into distinct SOC pools. We used a manipulative field experiment with an annual C 4 grass in a forest understory to differentially track its living root vs litter inputs into the soil and to assess net SOC formation over multiple years. We show that living root inputs are 2–13 times more efficient than litter inputs in forming both slow‐cycling, mineral‐associated SOC as well as fast‐cycling, particulate organic C. Furthermore, we demonstrate that living root inputs are more efficiently anabolized by the soil microbial community en route to the mineral‐associated SOC pool (dubbed ‘the in vivo microbial turnover pathway’). Overall, our findings provide support for the primacy of living root inputs in forming SOC. However, we also highlight the possibility of nonadditive effects of living root and litter inputs, which may deplete SOC pools despite greater SOC formation rates.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants
(1995) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-473542-2.x5000-7 · Cited by 19,181
Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425 · Cited by 13,847
An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C., & Jenkinson, D. S. (1987) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6 · Cited by 12,887
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
The Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants.
Martin, M. H., & Marschner, H. (1988) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2260650 · Cited by 5,489
The contentious nature of soil organic matter
Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature16069 · Cited by 4,525
Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis
Guo, L. B., & Gifford, R. M. (2002) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x · Cited by 3,972
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
The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage
Liang, C., Schimel, J. P., & Jastrow, J. D. (2017) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.105 · Cited by 3,320
Cited by
Microbial formation of stable soil carbon is more efficient from belowground than aboveground input
Sokol, N. W., & Bradford, M. A. (2019) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0258-6 · Cited by 891
Self-citationA 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
(2022) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/bs.agron.2021.11.002 · Cited by 538
Brewer, K. M., & Gaudin, A. C. M. (2020) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107936 · Cited by 99
Ruminating on soil carbon: applying current understanding to inform grazing management
Stanley, P. L., Wilson, C., Patterson, E., Machmuller, M. B., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2024) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.17223 · Cited by 82
Metadata
- Authors
- Sokol, N. W., Kuebbing, S. E., Karlsen‐Ayala, E., & Bradford, M. A.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 221
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 233-246
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2885454235
- Cited by
- 631
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 27.30
- 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: Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.15361
- The paper
- Sokol, N. W., Kuebbing, S. E., Karlsen‐Ayala, E., & Bradford, M. A. (2019). Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15361
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.
