Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 710

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Host selection shapes crop microbiome assembly and network complexity

Open access
Xiong, Chao, Zhu, Yong‐Guan, Wang, Jun‐Tao, Singh, Brajesh, Han, Li‐Li, Shen, Ju‐Pei, Li, Pei‐Pei, Wang, Gui‐Bao, Wu, Chuan‐Fa, Ge, An‐Hui, Zhang, Li‐Mei, He, Ji‐Zheng·2021·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Plant microbiomes are essential to host health and productivity but the ecological processes that govern crop microbiome assembly are not fully known. Here we examined bacterial communities across 684 samples from soils (rhizosphere and bulk soil) and multiple compartment niches (rhizoplane, root endosphere, phylloplane, and leaf endosphere) in maize (Zea mays)‐wheat (Triticum aestivum)/barley (Hordeum vulgare) rotation system under different fertilization practices at two contrasting sites. Our results demonstrate that microbiome assembly along the soil‐plant continuum is shaped predominantly by compartment niche and host species rather than by site or fertilization practice. From soils to epiphytes to endophytes, host selection pressure sequentially increased and bacterial diversity and network complexity consequently reduced, with the strongest host effect in leaf endosphere. Source tracking indicates that crop microbiome is mainly derived from soils and gradually enriched and filtered at different plant compartment niches. Moreover, crop microbiomes were dominated by a few dominant taxa (c. 0.5% of bacterial phylotypes), with bacilli identified as the important biomarker taxa for wheat and barley and Methylobacteriaceae for maize. Our work provides comprehensive empirical evidence on host selection, potential sources and enrichment processes for crop microbiome assembly, and has important implications for future crop management and manipulation of crop microbiome for sustainable agriculture.

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.16890

Cites

86 of 86 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 86 references

Cited by

See all 710

Metadata

Authors
Xiong, C., Zhu, Y., Wang, J., Singh, B., Han, L., Shen, J., Li, P., Wang, G., Wu, C., Ge, A., Zhang, L., & He, J.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-09-26
Volume
229
Issue
2
Pages
1091-1104
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W3080458156
Cited by
710
References
86
FWCI
46.22
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: Host selection shapes crop microbiome assembly and network complexity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.16890
The paper
Xiong, C., Zhu, Y., Wang, J., Singh, B., Han, L., Shen, J., Li, P., Wang, G., Wu, C., Ge, A., Zhang, L., & He, J. (2021). Host selection shapes crop microbiome assembly and network complexity. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16890

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.