The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Diversities and Compositions of Bacterial Populations Inhabiting Natural Forest Soils
Open accessAbstract
The diversity and composition of soil bacterial communities were compared among six Austrian natural forests, including oak-hornbeam, spruce-fir-beech, and Austrian pine forests, using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP, or TRF) analysis and sequence analysis of 16S rRNA genes. The forests studied differ greatly in soil chemical characteristics, microbial biomass, and nutrient turnover rates. The aim of this study was to relate these differences to the composition of the bacterial communities inhabiting the individual forest soils. Both TRF profiling and clone sequence analysis revealed that the bacterial communities in soils under Austrian pine forests, representing azonal forest types, were distinct from those in soils under zonal oak-hornbeam and spruce-fir-beech forests, which were more similar in community composition. Clones derived from an Austrian pine forest soil were mostly affiliated with high-G+C gram-positive bacteria (49%), followed by members of the α -Proteobacteria (20%) and the Holophaga/Acidobacterium group (12%). Clones in libraries from oak-hornbeam and spruce-fir-beech forest soils were mainly related to the Holophaga/Acidobacterium group (28 and 35%), followed by members of the Verrucomicrobia (24%) and the α -Proteobacteria (27%), respectively. The soil bacterial communities in forests with distinct vegetational and soil chemical properties appeared to be well differentiated based on 16S rRNA gene phylogeny. In particular, the outstanding position of the Austrian pine forests, which are determined by specific soil conditions, was reflected in the bacterial 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
Prokaryotic Diversity--Magnitude, Dynamics, and Controlling Factors
Torsvik, V., Øvreås, L., & Thingstad, T. F. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1071698 · Cited by 1,196
Cited by
The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities
Fierer, N., & Jackson, R. B. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507535103 · Cited by 5,711
The ecological coherence of high bacterial taxonomic ranks
Philippot, L., Andersson, S. G. E., Battin, T. J., Prosser, J. I., Schimel, J. P., Whitman, W. B., & Hallin, S. (2010) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2367 · Cited by 675
Wagner, M., & Horn, M. (2006) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2006.05.005 · Cited by 465
Mizrahi-Man, O., Davenport, E. R., & Gilad, Y. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053608 · Cited by 340
Szukics, U., Abell, G. C. J., Hödl, V., Mitter, B., Sessitsch, A., Hackl, E., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2010) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00853.x · Cited by 274
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hackl, E., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., Bodrossy, L., & Sessitsch, A.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5057-5065
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2112865195
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Comparison of Diversities and Compositions of Bacterial Populations Inhabiting Natural Forest Soils. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.70.9.5057-5065.2004
- The paper
- Hackl, E., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., Bodrossy, L., & Sessitsch, A. (2004). Comparison of Diversities and Compositions of Bacterial Populations Inhabiting Natural Forest Soils. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.70.9.5057-5065.2004
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.