Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 393

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A review of issues related to measuring colonization of plant roots by bacteria

Kloepper, Joseph W., Beauchamp, Chantal J.·1992·Canadian Journal of Microbiology

Abstract

Root colonization by introduced bacteria is an important step in the interaction of beneficial bacteria with the host plant. Investigators attempting to measure root colonization by bacteria must face several issues. A clear concept or definition of root colonization should be stated in each research summary, as several different definitions have been proposed. We consider true root colonists to be those bacteria that colonize roots in competitive conditions, i.e., natural field soils. Different methods of processing root samples are required if one is measuring external root colonization alone, internal colonization alone, or both. Given that most beneficial bacterial strains currently under investigation as root colonists are members of taxa naturally found in soils, a marking system is required to differentiate the introduced strain from members of the indigenous rhizosphere community. Spontaneous antibiotic resistance, immunological approaches, and foreign DNA sequences are among the marking systems that have been used and each has some possible advantages and disadvantages. More research is needed in the development and comparison of marking systems. The design of experiments to measure root colonization should take into account several statistical issues. One must decide what constitutes the sample unit for each replication of a given treatment, e.g., whole root systems or root segments. Consideration should also be given to how best to express the estimated population of root colonists (e.g., cfu/g fresh or dry weight root, cfu/cm root, or cfu/surface area root). Statistical analysis by standard analysis of variance tests should be used whenever possible to separate treatment means of colonization levels; however, one must determine that the underlying assumptions of these tests are correct for each experiment. Finally, in quantification of populations on roots, one will almost certainly encounter replications with no bacteria, i.e., zeros. There are several options for how to calculate treatment means when one or more replications is a zero, and the implications of these options are discussed. Key words: bioluminescence, genetic markers, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, rhizosphere bacteria, root, colonization.

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 · 10.1139/m92-202

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.

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

Cited by

See all 393

Metadata

Authors
Kloepper, J. W., & Beauchamp, C. J.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Microbiology
Published
1992-12-01
Volume
38
Issue
12
Pages
1219-1232
ISSN
  • 0008-4166 (ISSN-L)
  • 1480-3275
OpenAlex
W2021088574
Cited by
393
References
0
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A review of issues related to measuring colonization of plant roots by bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/m92-202
The paper
Kloepper, J. W., & Beauchamp, C. J. (1992). A review of issues related to measuring colonization of plant roots by bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1139/m92-202

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.