Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 232

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 access
Hackl, Evelyn, Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Sophie, Bodrossy, Levente, Sessitsch, Angela·2004·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.70.9.5057-5065.2004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 232

Metadata

Authors
Hackl, E., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., Bodrossy, L., & Sessitsch, A.
Venue
Applied and Environmental 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.