Kinetics of microbial sulfate reduction in estuarine sediments
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
δ34S evidence indicates that sulfate concentrations within the sediments were sufficiently low to affect the rate and extent of microbial sulfate reduction.
“Furthermore, δ34S evidence indicates that sulfate concentrations within the sediments were sufficiently low to affect the rate and extent of microbial sulfate reduction (32).”
From Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation (2012) · cites this paper as [32]
Background intervals are characterized by light δ34S values (average -6.0 ± 0.6‰) that display relatively high fractionations of 30-40‰ from Cambrian seawater (ca. +30‰), indicating that microbial sulfate reduction was not impeded in these intervals.
“Background intervals are characterized by light δ34S values (average -6.0 ± 0.6‰) that display relatively high fractionations of 30–40‰ (30) from Cambrian seawater (ca. +30‰; ref. 31), indicating that microbial sulfate reduction was not impeded in these intervals (32).”
From Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation (2012) · cites this paper as [32]
Diffusion-limited conditions would have slowed the typical processes of microbial degradation in sediments by restricting the efficiency of sulfate reduction, thereby shifting the primary microbial pathways for degradation of labile carbon to the less efficient processes of methanogenesis and fermentation.
“Diffusion-limited conditions would have slowed the typical processes of microbial degradation in sediments by restricting the efficiency of sulfate reduction, thereby shifting the primary microbial pathways for degradation of labile carbon to the less efficient processes of methanogenesis and fermentation (11, 32).”
From Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation (2012) · cites this paper as [32]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Role of organic amendments on enhanced bioremediation of heavy metal (loid) contaminated soils
Park, J. H., Lamb, D., Paneerselvam, P., Choppala, G., Bolan, N., & Chung, J.-W. (2011) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.082 · Cited by 936 · see citing works
Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation
Gaines, R. R., Hammarlund, E. U., Hou, X., Qi, C., Gabbott, S. E., Zhao, Y., Peng, J., & Canfield, D. E. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1111784109 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pallud, C., & Van Cappellen, P.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Pallud, Céline
- ORCID
- Pallud, Céline
- Venue
- Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1148-1162
- ISSN
- 0016-7037 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2036953839
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 9.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Methane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
- Keywords
- microbial sulfate reduction, estuarine sediments, intertidal sediments, Scheldt estuary, Michaelis-Menten kinetics, sulfate-reducing bacteria, salinity gradient, transport limitations, organic matter quality, lactate supplementation, sediment porosity, temperature effects
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
