The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Levels of Bacterial Community Diversity in Four Arid Soils Compared by Cultivation and 16S rRNA Gene Cloning
Open accessAbstract
Techniques based on amplification of 16S rRNA genes for comparing bacterial communities are now widely used in microbial ecology, but calibration of these techniques with traditional tools, such as cultivation, has been conspicuously absent. In this study, we compared levels of bacterial community diversity in two pinyon rhizosphere soil samples and two between-tree (interspace) soil samples by analyzing 179 cultivated bacterial isolates and 801 16S rRNA genes amplified from extracted soil DNA. Phylotypes were defined by performing a restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences with the enzymes Rsa I and Bst UI. The average level of 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity of members of a phylotype was 86.6% based on an analysis of partial sequences. A total of 498 phylotypes were identified among the 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) clones, while 34 phylotypes occurred among the cultivated isolates. Analysis of sequences from a subset of the phylotypes showed that at least seven bacterial divisions were represented in the clone libraries, whereas the isolates represented only three. The phylotype richness, frequency distribution (evenness), and composition of the four culture collections and the four clone libraries were investigated by using a variety of diversity indices. Although cultivation and 16S rRNA cloning analyses gave contradictory descriptions of the relative phylotype richness for one of the four environments, the two methods identified qualitatively consistent relationships when levels of evenness were compared. The levels of phylotype similarity between communities were uniformly low (15 to 31%). Both methods consistently indicated that one environment was distinct from the other three. Our data illustrate that while 16S rDNA cloning and cultivation generally describe similar relationships between soil microbial communities, significant discrepancies can occur.
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
Cited by
Garbeva, P., van Veen, J. A., & van Elsas, J. D. (2004) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.012604.135455 · Cited by 1,458
Using ecological diversity measures with bacterial communities
Hill, T. C. J., Walsh, K. A., Harris, J. A., & Moffett, B. F. (2003) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1016/s0168-6496(02)00449-x · Cited by 1,020
Daniel, R. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160 · Cited by 862
Sessitsch, A., Weilharter, A., Gerzabek, M. H., Kirchmann, H., & Kandeler, E. (2001) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.67.9.4215-4224.2001 · Cited by 722
Dunbar, J., Ticknor, L. O., & Kuske, C. R. (2001) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.67.1.190-197.2001 · Cited by 561
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunbar, J., Takala, S., Barns, S. M., Davis, J. A., & Kuske, C. R.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1999-04
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1662-1669
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W1957680859
- Cited by
- 439
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.03
- 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: Levels of Bacterial Community Diversity in Four Arid Soils Compared by Cultivation and 16S rRNA Gene Cloning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.65.4.1662-1669.1999
- The paper
- Dunbar, J., Takala, S., Barns, S. M., Davis, J. A., & Kuske, C. R. (1999). Levels of Bacterial Community Diversity in Four Arid Soils Compared by Cultivation and 16S rRNA Gene Cloning. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.4.1662-1669.1999
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.