The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protozoa and plant growth: the microbial loop in soil revisited
Open accessAbstract
Summary: All nutrients that plants absorb have to pass a region of intense interactions between roots, microorganisms and animals, termed the rhizosphere. Plants allocate a great portion of their photosynthetically fixed carbon to root‐infecting symbionts, such asmycorrhizal fungi; another part is released as exudates fuelling mainly free‐living rhizobacteria. Rhizobacteria are strongly top‐down regulated by microfaunal grazers, particularly protozoa. Consequently, beneficial effects of protozoa on plant growth have been assigned to nutrients released from consumed bacterial biomass, that is, the ‘microbial loop’. In recent years however, the recognition of bacterial communication networks, the common exchange of microbial signals with roots and the fact that these signals are used to enhance the efflux of carbon from roots have revolutionized our view of rhizosphere processes. Most importantly, effects of rhizobacteria on root architecture seem to be driven in large by protozoan grazers. Protozoan effects on plant root systems stand in sharp contrast to effects of mycorrhizal fungi. Because the regulation of root architecture is a key determinant of nutrient‐ and water‐use efficiency in plants, protozoa provide a model system that may considerably advance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying plant growth and community composition.
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
Herbivore-mediated linkages between aboveground and belowground communities
Bardgett, R. D., & Wardle, D. A. (2003) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/02-0274 · Cited by 1,173
Population energetics of bacterial-feeding nematodes: Carbon and nitrogen budgets
Ferris, H., Venette, R. C., & Lau, S. S. (1997) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(97)00035-7 · Cited by 176
Cited by
Van Der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D., & Van Straalen, N. M. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01139.x · Cited by 5,053
Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions
Burns, R. G., DeForest, J. L., Marxsen, J., Sinsabaugh, R. L., Stromberger, M. E., Wallenstein, M. D., Weintraub, M. N., & Zoppini, A. (2013) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.009 · Cited by 2,552
Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services
Lavelle, P., Decaëns, T., Aubert, M., Barot, S., Blouin, M., Bureau, F., Margerie, P., Mora, P., & Rossi, J.-P. (2006) · European Journal of Soil Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002 · Cited by 1,606
Linking aboveground and belowground diversity
DEDEYN, G., & VANDERPUTTEN, W. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.08.009 · Cited by 470
Strategies and agronomic interventions to improve the phosphorus-use efficiency of farming systems
Simpson, R. J., Oberson, A., Culvenor, R. A., Ryan, M. H., Veneklaas, E. J., Lambers, H., Lynch, J. P., Ryan, P. R., Delhaize, E., Smith, F. A., et al. (2011) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-011-0880-1 · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonkowski, M.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-04-13
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 617-631
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2086463820
- Cited by
- 877
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 28.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Protozoa and plant growth: the microbial loop in soil revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01066.x
- The paper
- Bonkowski, M. (2004). Protozoa and plant growth: the microbial loop in soil revisited. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01066.x
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.