The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Feeback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community
Open accessAbstract
The nature of the interaction between plants ant their soil community was investigated by testing for differential responses of four old—field perennial plant species to inocula derived from soil communities that had been grown with ("cultured by") one of these four plant species. The differentiation of the soil communities was evident in measurements of plant survival, phenology, growth, and root—shoot ratios. Effects on survival and growth suggest negative feedbacks between these species and the soil communities that they culture. Survival rates of Krigia dandelion were significantly reduced when grown with their own" soil community. Considered as a whole, the three other species (all grasses) had significantly lower growth and root—shoot ratios when grown with soil communities started with their own inocula compared to soil communities started with the inocula of other species. However, the significance of this effect on growth rate and root—shoot ratios was due primarily to the pairwise comparison of Anthoxanthum odoratum and Danthonia spicata and of Anthoxanthum and Panicum sphaerocarpon, respectively. Pairwise comparisons of Danthonia and Panicum do not suggest differential responses to each other's soils in growth rate or root—shoot ratios nor do soil communities appear to affect the relative competitive ability of these two species. While the components of the soil community responsible for these effects have not been identified, similar although less pronounced patterns were observed in experiments using inocula consisting of washed live root segments as compared to experiments using whole soil as inoculum, suggesting that root pathogens are one important agent.
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
Cited by
Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory
HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Levine, J. M., & Mayfield, M. M. (2012) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110411-160411 · Cited by 1,448
Bever, J. D. (2003) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00714.x · Cited by 873
Self-citationRoot competition: beyond resource depletion
SCHENK, H. J. (2006) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01124.x · Cited by 587
Home-field advantage accelerates leaf litter decomposition in forests
Ayres, E., Steltzer, H., Simmons, B. L., Simpson, R. T., Steinweg, J. M., Wallenstein, M. D., Mellor, N., Parton, W. J., Moore, J. C., & Wall, D. H. (2009) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.022 · Cited by 549
Pugnaire, F. I., Morillo, J. A., Peñuelas, J., Reich, P. B., Bardgett, R. D., Gaxiola, A., Wardle, D. A., & van der Putten, W. H. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz1834 · Cited by 513
Metadata
- Authors
- Bever, J. D.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-10
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1965-1977
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984014855
- Cited by
- 730
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.33
- 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: Feeback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1941601
- The paper
- Bever, J. D. (1994). Feeback between Plants and Their Soil Communities in an Old Field Community. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941601
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.