The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Significant Role for Microbial Autotrophy in the Sequestration of Soil Carbon
Open accessAbstract
Soils were incubated for 80 days in a continuously labeled 14 CO 2 atmosphere to measure the amount of labeled C incorporated into the microbial biomass. Microbial assimilation of 14 C differed between soils and accounted for 0.12% to 0.59% of soil organic carbon (SOC). Assuming a terrestrial area of 1.4 × 10 8 km 2 , this represents a potential global sequestration of 0.6 to 4.9 Pg C year −1 . Estimated global C sequestration rates suggest a “missing sink” for carbon of between 2 and 3 Pg C year −1 . To determine whether 14 CO 2 incorporation was mediated by autotrophic microorganisms, the diversity and abundance of CO 2 -fixing bacteria and algae were investigated using clone library sequencing, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP), and quantitative PCR (qPCR) of the ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RubisCO) gene ( cbbL ). Phylogenetic analysis showed that the dominant cbbL -containing bacteria were Azospirillum lipoferum , Rhodopseudomonas palustris , Bradyrhizobium japonicum , Ralstonia eutropha , and cbbL -containing chromophytic algae of the genera Xanthophyta and Bacillariophyta . Multivariate analyses of T-RFLP profiles revealed significant differences in cbbL -containing microbial communities between soils. Differences in cbbL gene diversity were shown to be correlated with differences in SOC content. Bacterial and algal cbbL gene abundances were between 10 6 and 10 8 and 10 3 to 10 5 copies g −1 soil, respectively. Bacterial cbbL abundance was shown to be positively correlated with RubisCO activity ( r = 0.853; P < 0.05), and both cbbL abundance and RubisCO activity were significantly related to the synthesis rates of [ 14 C]SOC ( r = 0.967 and 0.946, respectively; P < 0.01). These data offer new insights into the importance of microbial autotrophy in terrestrial C cycling.
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
Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
Altschul, S. (1997) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 · Cited by 73,302
MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) Software Version 4.0
Tamura, K., Dudley, J., Nei, M., & Kumar, S. (2007) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msm092 · Cited by 28,730
Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties.
Page, A. L. (1982) · Cited by 12,923
Climate change 2001: synthesis report
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4660 · Cited by 5,272
Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report
(2024) · Climate Change and Law Collection · doi:10.1163/9789004322714_cclc_2023-0258-1193 · Cited by 2,341
The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System
Falkowski, P., Scholes, R. J., Boyle, E., Canadell, J., Canfield, D., Elser, J., Gruber, N., Hibbard, K., Högberg, P., Linder, S., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5490.291 · Cited by 2,177
Lal, R. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2185 · Cited by 1,413
Trait-Based Community Ecology of Phytoplankton
Litchman, E., & Klausmeier, C. A. (2008) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173549 · Cited by 1,290
Atmospheric carbon dioxide and the ocean
Siegenthaler, U., & Sarmiento, J. L. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/365119a0 · Cited by 1,021
Tcherkez, G. G. B., Farquhar, G. D., & Andrews, T. J. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0600605103 · Cited by 770
Cited by
Soil structure and microbiome functions in agroecosystems
Hartmann, M., & Six, J. (2022) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-022-00366-w · Cited by 1,294
Trivedi, P., Anderson, I. C., & Singh, B. K. (2013) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2013.09.005 · Cited by 584
Soil microbiome: a key player for conservation of soil health under changing climate
Dubey, A., Malla, M. A., Khan, F., Chowdhary, K., Yadav, S., Kumar, A., Sharma, S., Khare, P. K., & Khan, M. L. (2019) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-019-01760-5 · Cited by 396
Stability and succession of the rhizosphere microbiota depends upon plant type and soil composition
Tkacz, A., Cheema, J., Chandra, G., Grant, A., & Poole, P. S. (2015) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2015.41 · Cited by 347
Biologia Futura: potential of different forms of microalgae for soil improvement
Mutum, L., Janda, T., Ördög, V., & Molnár, Z. (2022) · Biologia Futura · doi:10.1007/s42977-021-00103-2 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Yuan, H., Ge, T., Chen, C., O'Donnell, A. G., & Wu, J.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2328-2336
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2041486862
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 16.37
- 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: Significant Role for Microbial Autotrophy in the Sequestration of Soil Carbon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.06881-11
- The paper
- Yuan, H., Ge, T., Chen, C., O'Donnell, A. G., & Wu, J. (2012). Significant Role for Microbial Autotrophy in the Sequestration of Soil Carbon. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.06881-11
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.