Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 394

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biogeography of global drylands

Open access
Maestre, Fernando T., Benito, Blas M., Berdugo, Miguel, Concostrina‐Zubiri, Laura, Delgado‐Baquerizo, Manuel, Eldridge, David J., Guirado, Emilio, Gross, Nicolas, Kéfi, Sonia, Le Bagousse‐Pinguet, Yoann, Ochoa‐Hueso, Raúl, Soliveres, Santiago·2021·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: Despite their extent and socio‐ecological importance, a comprehensive biogeographical synthesis of drylands is lacking. Here we synthesize the biogeography of key organisms (vascular and nonvascular vegetation and soil microorganisms), attributes (functional traits, spatial patterns, plant–plant and plant–soil interactions) and processes (productivity and land cover) across global drylands. These areas have a long evolutionary history, are centers of diversification for many plant lineages and include important plant diversity hotspots. This diversity captures a strikingly high portion of the variation in leaf functional diversity observed globally. Part of this functional diversity is associated with the large variation in response and effect traits in the shrubs encroaching dryland grasslands. Aridity and its interplay with the traits of interacting plant species largely shape biogeographical patterns in plant–plant and plant–soil interactions, and in plant spatial patterns. Aridity also drives the composition of biocrust communities and vegetation productivity, which shows large geographical variation. We finish our review by discussing major research gaps, which include: studying regular vegetation spatial patterns; establishing large‐scale plant and biocrust field surveys assessing individual‐level trait measurements; knowing whether the impacts of plant–plant and plant–soil interactions on biodiversity are predictable; and assessing how elevated CO 2 modulates future aridity conditions and plant productivity.

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.17395

Cites

114 of 114 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 114 references

Cited by

See all 394

Metadata

Authors
Maestre, F. T., Benito, B. M., Berdugo, M., Concostrina‐Zubiri, L., Delgado‐Baquerizo, M., Eldridge, D. J., Guirado, E., Gross, N., Kéfi, S., Le Bagousse‐Pinguet, Y., Ochoa‐Hueso, R., & Soliveres, S.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-05-20
Volume
231
Issue
2
Pages
540-558
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W3156605918
Cited by
394
References
114
FWCI
33.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Biogeography of global drylands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.17395
The paper
Maestre, F. T., Benito, B. M., Berdugo, M., Concostrina‐Zubiri, L., Delgado‐Baquerizo, M., Eldridge, D. J., Guirado, E., Gross, N., Kéfi, S., Le Bagousse‐Pinguet, Y., Ochoa‐Hueso, R., & Soliveres, S. (2021). Biogeography of global drylands. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17395

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.