Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29086005›Full record

ArticleOecologia2018

Mycorrhizal associations and the spatial structure of an old-growth forest community.

Daniel J Johnson, Keith Clay, Richard P Phillips

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel J JohnsonUtah State University, Logan, UT, USA. daniel.johnson@usu.edu.
Keith ClayIndiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Richard P PhillipsIndiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.

Funding

Division of Environmental Biology 1046113Division of Environmental Biology 1110533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant-soil feedbacks are known to play a central role in species co-existence, but conceptual frameworks for predicting their magnitude and direction are lacking. We ask whether co-occurring trees that associate with different types of mycorrhizal fungi, which are hypothesized to differ in terms of nutrient use and plant-soil feedbacks, differ in sapling establishment densities and probability of co-occurrence. Given that ectomycorrhizal (ECM) trees typically have fungal structures that protect roots from pathogens whereas arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) trees do not, we hypothesized that ECM saplings would be clustered around ECM trees, while AM saplings would be suppressed near AM trees. Most previous studies have focused on seedlings, but here we examine whether the spatial signal is evident in later life stages. We measured the spatial associations of ~ 28,000 trees using point pattern analysis in a 25-ha old-growth forest where ECM trees comprised 72% of total basal area and 42% of the total stems, while AM trees comprised the remainder. Supporting our hypothesis, AM saplings were more inhibited by AM trees, while ECM saplings were more clustered around ECM trees. The spatial patterns of AM and ECM trees on saplings of the alternate mycorrhizal type were inhibited. To the extent that similar types of feedbacks occur for other AM and ECM trees, our results suggest that fundamental differences in the nature of local-scale biotic interactions between trees and their fungal symbionts may influence forest community assembly and ecosystem dynamics.

Indexed as

MycorrhizaeEcosystemForestsPlant RootsSoilSoil MicrobiologySoilArbuscular mycorrhizaeEctomycorrhizaeForestGEOOak–hickory forestPair-correlation function

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.