The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cellulose utilization in forest litter and soil: identification of bacterial and fungal decomposers
Open accessAbstract
Organic matter decomposition in the globally widespread coniferous forests has an important role in the carbon cycle, and cellulose decomposition is especially important in this respect because cellulose is the most abundant polysaccharide in plant litter. Cellulose decomposition was 10 times faster in the fungi-dominated litter of Picea abies forest than in the bacteria-dominated soil. In the soil, the added (13)C-labelled cellulose was the main source of microbial respiration and was preferentially accumulated in the fungal biomass and cellulose induced fungal proliferation. In contrast, in the litter, bacterial biomass showed higher labelling after (13)C-cellulose addition and bacterial biomass increased. While 80% of the total community was represented by 104-106 bacterial and 33-59 fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs), 80% of the cellulolytic communities of bacteria and fungi were only composed of 8-18 highly abundant OTUs. Both the total and (13)C-labelled communities differed substantially between the litter and soil. Cellulolytic bacteria in the acidic topsoil included Betaproteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Acidobacteria, whereas these typically found in neutral soils were absent. Most fungal cellulose decomposers belonged to Ascomycota; cellulolytic Basidiomycota were mainly represented by the yeasts Trichosporon and Cryptococcus. Several bacteria and fungi demonstrated here to derive their carbon from cellulose were previously not recognized as cellulolytic.
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
Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics
White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S., & Taylor, J. (1990) · PCR Protocols · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1 · Cited by 36,648
Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST
Edgar, R. C. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 · Cited by 20,826
Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences
Li, W., & Godzik, A. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl158 · Cited by 11,410
GARDES, M., & BRUNS, T. D. (1993) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.1993.tb00005.x · Cited by 10,480
Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation
Amann, R., Ludwig, W., & SCHLEIFER, K. H. (1995) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.59.1.143-169.1995 · Cited by 9,093
Methods for general and molecular bacteriology
Gerhardt, P. (1994) · Cited by 6,602
The Ribosomal Database Project: improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis
Cole, J. R., Wang, Q., Cardenas, E., Fish, J., Chai, B., Farris, R. J., Kulam-Syed-Mohideen, A. S., McGarrell, D. M., Marsh, T., Garrity, G. M., et al. (2009) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkn879 · Cited by 4,762
Microbial Cellulose Utilization: Fundamentals and Biotechnology
Lynd, L. R., Weimer, P. J., van Zyl, W. H., & Pretorius, I. S. (2002) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.66.3.506-577.2002 · Cited by 4,726
Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist
Dereeper, A., Guignon, V., Blanc, G., Audic, S., Buffet, S., Chevenet, F., Dufayard, J.-F., Guindon, S., Lefort, V., Lescot, M., et al. (2008) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkn180 · Cited by 4,700
Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Knight, R., & Fierer, N. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00335-09 · Cited by 4,063
Cited by
Turner, T. R., James, E. K., & Poole, P. S. (2013) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-209 · Cited by 1,349
Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling
Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., & Richter, A. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12113 · Cited by 991
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Self-citationLópez-Mondéjar, R., Zühlke, D., Becher, D., Riedel, K., & Baldrian, P. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep25279 · Cited by 482
Self-citationŽifčáková, L., Větrovský, T., Howe, A., & Baldrian, P. (2016) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.13026 · Cited by 406
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Štursová, M., Žifčáková, L., Leigh, M. B., Burgess, R., & Baldrian, P.
- Venue
- FEMS Microbiology Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-03-27
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 735-746
- ISSN
- 0168-6496 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007429056
- Cited by
- 511
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 29.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Cellulose utilization in forest litter and soil: identification of bacterial and fungal decomposers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01343.x
- The paper
- Štursová, M., Žifčáková, L., Leigh, M. B., Burgess, R., & Baldrian, P. (2012). Cellulose utilization in forest litter and soil: identification of bacterial and fungal decomposers. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01343.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.
