The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relationships between Biovolume and Biomass of Naturally Derived Marine Bacterioplankton
Open accessAbstract
Microscopic estimation of bacterial biomass requires determination of both biovolume and biovolume-to-biomass conversion. Both steps have uncertainty when applied to the very small bacteria typically found in natural seawater. In the present study, natural bacterioplankton assemblages were freshly collected, passed through 0.6-μm-pore-size Nuclepore filters to remove larger particulate materials, and diluted for growth in 0.22-μm-pore-size Millipore filter-sterilized unenriched seawater. This provided cells comparable in size and morphology to those in natural seawater, but the cultures were free of the interfering particulate detritus naturally present. Cells were collected on glass-fiber GF/F filters, and biovolumes were corrected for cells passing these filters; C and N were measured with a CHN analyzer. Our criteria for size measurement by epifluorescence photomicrography were confirmed with fluorescent microspheres of known diameters. Surprisingly, in six cultures with average per-cell biovolumes ranging from 0.036 to 0.073 μm 3 , the average per-cell carbon biomass was relatively constant at 20 ± 0.08 fg of C (mean ± standard error of the mean). The biovolume-to-biomass conversion factor averaged 0.38 ± 0.05 g of C cm −3 , which is about three times higher than the value previously estimated from Escherichia coli , and decreased with increasing cell volume. The C:N ratio was 3.7 ± 0.2. We conclude that natural marine bacterial biomass and production may be higher than was previously thought and that variations in bacterial size may not reflect variations in biomass per cell. Images:
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
Heldal, M., Norland, S., & Tumyr, O. (1985) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.50.5.1251-1257.1985 · Cited by 150
Cited by
Prokaryotes: The unseen majority
Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., & Wiebe, W. J. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 · Cited by 4,871
The biomass distribution on Earth
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115 · Cited by 3,723
Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review
Després, V. R., Huffman, J. A., Burrows, S. M., Hoose, C., Safatov, A. S., Buryak, G., Fröhlich-Nowoisky, J., Elbert, W., Andreae, M. O., Pöschl, U., et al. (2012) · Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology · doi:10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 · Cited by 1,500
Major role of bacteria in biogeochemical fluxes in the ocean's interior
Cho, B. C., & Azam, F. (1988) · Nature · doi:10.1038/332441a0 · Cited by 773
Moran, M. A., Satinsky, B., Gifford, S. M., Luo, H., Rivers, A., Chan, L.-K., Meng, J., Durham, B. P., Shen, C., Varaljay, V. A., et al. (2013) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2012.94 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, S., & Fuhrman, J. A.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1987-06
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1298-1303
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W1560954028
- Cited by
- 1,333
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 34.50
- 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: Relationships between Biovolume and Biomass of Naturally Derived Marine Bacterioplankton. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.53.6.1298-1303.1987
- The paper
- Lee, S., & Fuhrman, J. A. (1987). Relationships between Biovolume and Biomass of Naturally Derived Marine Bacterioplankton. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.53.6.1298-1303.1987
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.