Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Multifactor Analysis of Fungal and Bacterial Community Structure in the Root Microbiome of Mature Populus deltoides Trees

Open access
Shakya, Migun, Gottel, Neil, Castro, Hector, Yang, Zamin K., Gunter, Lee, Labbé, Jessy, Muchero, Wellington, Bonito, Gregory, Vilgalys, Rytas, Tuskan, Gerald, Podar, Mircea, Schadt, Christopher W.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Bacterial and fungal communities associated with plant roots are central to the host health, survival and growth. However, a robust understanding of the root-microbiome and the factors that drive host associated microbial community structure have remained elusive, especially in mature perennial plants from natural settings. Here, we investigated relationships of bacterial and fungal communities in the rhizosphere and root endosphere of the riparian tree species Populus deltoides, and the influence of soil parameters, environmental properties (host phenotype and aboveground environmental settings), host plant genotype (Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) markers), season (Spring vs. Fall) and geographic setting (at scales from regional watersheds to local riparian zones) on microbial community structure. Each of the trees sampled displayed unique aspects to its associated community structure with high numbers of Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) specific to an individual trees (bacteria >90%, fungi >60%). Over the diverse conditions surveyed only a small number of OTUs were common to all samples within rhizosphere (35 bacterial and 4 fungal) and endosphere (1 bacterial and 1 fungal) microbiomes. As expected, Proteobacteria and Ascomycota were dominant in root communities (>50%) while other higher-level phylogenetic groups (Chytridiomycota, Acidobacteria) displayed greatly reduced abundance in endosphere compared to the rhizosphere. Variance partitioning partially explained differences in microbiome composition between all sampled roots on the basis of seasonal and soil properties (4% to 23%). While most variation remains unattributed, we observed significant differences in the microbiota between watersheds (Tennessee vs. North Carolina) and seasons (Spring vs. Fall). SSR markers clearly delineated two host populations associated with the samples taken in TN vs. NC, but overall host genotypic distances did not have a significant effect on corresponding communities that could be separated from other measured effects.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0076382

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Shakya, M., Gottel, N., Castro, H., Yang, Z. K., Gunter, L., Labbé, J., Muchero, W., Bonito, G., Vilgalys, R., Tuskan, G., Podar, M., & Schadt, C. W.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-10-16
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
e76382
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064651289
Cited by
307
References
7
FWCI
18.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A Multifactor Analysis of Fungal and Bacterial Community Structure in the Root Microbiome of Mature Populus deltoides Trees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0076382
The paper
Shakya, M., Gottel, N., Castro, H., Yang, Z. K., Gunter, L., Labbé, J., Muchero, W., Bonito, G., Vilgalys, R., Tuskan, G., Podar, M., & Schadt, C. W. (2013). A Multifactor Analysis of Fungal and Bacterial Community Structure in the Root Microbiome of Mature Populus deltoides Trees. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076382

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.