The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling
Abstract
Carbon use efficiency (CUE) is a fundamental parameter for ecological models based on the physiology of microorganisms. CUE determines energy and material flows to higher trophic levels, conversion of plant‐produced carbon into microbial products and rates of ecosystem carbon storage. Thermodynamic calculations support a maximum CUE value of ~ 0.60 (CUE max). Kinetic and stoichiometric constraints on microbial growth suggest that CUE in multi‐resource limited natural systems should approach ~ 0.3 (CUE max/2). However, the mean CUE values reported for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems differ by twofold (~ 0.26 vs. ~ 0.55) because the methods used to estimate CUE in aquatic and terrestrial systems generally differ and soil estimates are less likely to capture the full maintenance costs of community metabolism given the difficulty of measurements in water‐limited environments. Moreover, many simulation models lack adequate representation of energy spilling pathways and stoichiometric constraints on metabolism, which can also lead to overestimates of CUE. We recommend that broad‐scale models use a CUE value of 0.30, unless there is evidence for lower values as a result of pervasive nutrient limitations. Ecosystem models operating at finer scales should consider resource composition, stoichiometric constraints and biomass composition, as well as environmental drivers, to predict the CUE of microbial communities.
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
Cites
TOWARD A METABOLIC THEORY OF ECOLOGY
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M., & West, G. B. (2004) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/03-9000 · Cited by 7,779
Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere
Sterner, R. W., & Elser, J. J. (2002) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,476
C:N:P stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?
Cleveland, C. C., & Liptzin, D. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9132-0 · Cited by 2,365
Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., & Batten, K. M. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0347 · Cited by 2,176
Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon‐use efficiency in soils
Manzoni, S., Taylor, P., Richter, A., Porporato, A., & Ågren, G. I. (2012) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04225.x · Cited by 1,708
Self-citationBlagodatskaya, Е., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2008) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/s00374-008-0334-y · Cited by 1,570
Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology
Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D., & Bradford, M. A. (2010) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo846 · Cited by 1,562
Schimel, J. (2003) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00015-4 · Cited by 1,552
Plant litter: decomposition, humus formation, carbon sequestration
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-6172 · Cited by 1,522
Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: a model
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B., & Cole, C. V. (1988) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/bf02180320 · Cited by 1,453
Cited by
Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss
Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix, M. L., Wall, D. H., & Parton, W. J. (2015) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo2520 · Cited by 1,874
Mooshammer, M., Wanek, W., Hämmerle, I., Fuchslueger, L., Hofhansl, F., Knoltsch, A., Schnecker, J., Takriti, M., Watzka, M., Wild, B., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4694 · Cited by 1,010
Self-citationManaging uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change
Bradford, M. A., Wieder, W. R., Bonan, G. B., Fierer, N., Raymond, P. A., & Crowther, T. W. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3071 · Cited by 894
Accelerated microbial turnover but constant growth efficiency with warming in soil
Hagerty, S. B., van Groenigen, K. J., Allison, S. D., Hungate, B. A., Schwartz, E., Koch, G. W., Kolka, R. K., & Dijkstra, P. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2361 · Cited by 369
Biodegradation: Updating the Concepts of Control for Microbial Cleanup in Contaminated Aquifers
Meckenstock, R. U., Elsner, M., Griebler, C., Lueders, T., Stumpp, C., Aamand, J., Agathos, S. N., Albrechtsen, H.-J., Bastiaens, L., Bjerg, P. L., et al. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00715 · Cited by 296
Metadata
- Authors
- Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., & Richter, A.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-30
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 930-939
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2081776673
- Cited by
- 991
- References
- 85
- FWCI
- 58.49
- 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: Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ele.12113
- The paper
- Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., & Richter, A. (2013). Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12113
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.
