Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Experimental demonstration of chaotic instability in biological nitrification

Graham, David W, Knapp, Charles W, Van Vleck, Erik S, Bloor, Katie, Lane, Teresa B, Graham, Christopher E·2007·The ISME Journal

Abstract

Biological nitrification (that is, NH3 → NO2− → NO3−) is a key reaction in the global nitrogen cycle (N-cycle); however, it is also known anecdotally to be unpredictable and sometimes fails inexplicably. Understanding the basis of unpredictability in nitrification is critical because the loss or impairment of this function might influence the balance of nitrogen in the environment and also has biotechnological implications. One explanation for unpredictability is the presence of chaotic behavior; however, proving such behavior from experimental data is not trivial, especially in a complex microbial community. Here, we show that chaotic behavior is central to stability in nitrification because of a fragile mutualistic relationship between ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB), the two major guilds in nitrification. Three parallel chemostats containing mixed microbial communities were fed complex media for 207 days, and nitrification performance, and abundances of AOB, NOB, total bacteria and protozoa were quantified over time. Lyapunov exponent calculations, supported by surrogate data and other tests, showed that all guilds were sensitive to initial conditions, suggesting broad chaotic behavior. However, NOB were most unstable among guilds and displayed a different general pattern of instability. Further, NOB variability was maximized when AOB were most unstable, which resulted in erratic nitrification including significant NO2− accumulation. We conclude that nitrification is prone to chaotic behavior because of a fragile AOB–NOB mutualism, which must be considered in all systems that depend on this critical reaction.

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 · 10.1038/ismej.2007.45

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Graham, D. W., Knapp, C. W., Van Vleck, E. S., Bloor, K., Lane, T. B., & Graham, C. E.
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2007-07-12
Volume
1
Issue
5
Pages
385-393
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2129506790
Cited by
300
References
37
FWCI
9.02
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: Experimental demonstration of chaotic instability in biological nitrification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ismej.2007.45
The paper
Graham, D. W., Knapp, C. W., Van Vleck, E. S., Bloor, K., Lane, T. B., & Graham, C. E. (2007). Experimental demonstration of chaotic instability in biological nitrification. The ISME Journal. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2007.45

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.