Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Characterization of bacterial communities in four freshwater lakes differing in nutrient load and food web structure

Gucht, Katleen, Vandekerckhove, Tom, Vloemans, Nele, Cousin, Sylvie, Muylaert, Koenraad, Sabbe, Koen, Gillis, Moniek, Declerk, Steven, Meester, Luc, Vyverman, Wim·2005·FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Abstract

The phylogenetic composition of bacterioplankton communities in the water column of four shallow eutrophic lakes was analyzed by partially sequencing cloned 16S rRNA genes and by PCR-DGGE analysis. The four lakes differed in nutrient load and food web structure: two were in a clearwater state and had dense stands of submerged macrophytes, while two others were in a turbid state characterized by the occurrence of phytoplankton blooms. One turbid and one clearwater lake had very high nutrient levels (total phosphorus > 100 microg/l), while the other lakes were less nutrient rich (total phosphorus < 100 microg/l). Cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling and ANOSIM (analysis of similarity) were used to investigate differences among the bacterial community composition in the four lakes. Our results show that each lake has its own distinct bacterioplankton community. The samples of lake Blankaart differed substantially from those of the other lakes; this pattern was consistent throughout the year of study. The bacterioplankton community composition in lake Blankaart seems to be less diverse and less stable than in the other three lakes. Clone library results reveal that Actinobacteria strongly dominated the bacterial community in lake Blankaart. The relative abundance of Betaproteobacteria was low, whereas this group was dominant in the other three lakes. Turbid lakes had a higher representation of Cyanobacteria, while clearwater lakes were characterized by more representatives of the Bacteroidetes. Correlating our DGGE data with environmental parameters, using the BIOENV procedure, suggests that differences are partly related to the equilibrium state of the lake.

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 · 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.12.006

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 176

Metadata

Authors
Gucht, K., Vandekerckhove, T., Vloemans, N., Cousin, S., Muylaert, K., Sabbe, K., Gillis, M., Declerk, S., Meester, L., & Vyverman, W.
Venue
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
Published
2005-07
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
205-220
ISSN
  • 0168-6496 (ISSN-L)
  • 1574-6941
OpenAlex
W2017634122
Cited by
176
References
1
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Characterization of bacterial communities in four freshwater lakes differing in nutrient load and food web structure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.femsec.2004.12.006
The paper
Gucht, K., Vandekerckhove, T., Vloemans, N., Cousin, S., Muylaert, K., Sabbe, K., Gillis, M., Declerk, S., Meester, L., & Vyverman, W. (2005). Characterization of bacterial communities in four freshwater lakes differing in nutrient load and food web structure. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2004.12.006

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.