The DOI matches its Crossref record.
BACTERIAL GROWTH EFFICIENCY IN NATURAL AQUATIC SYSTEMS
Abstract
▪ Abstract Heterotrophic bacteria perform two major functions in the transformation of organic matter: They produce new bacterial biomass (bacterial secondary production [BP]), and they respire organic C to inorganic C (bacterial respiration [BR]). For planktonic bacteria, a great deal has been learned about BP and its regulation during the past several decades but far less has been learned about BR. Our lack of knowledge about BR limits our ability to understand the role of bacteria in the carbon cycle of aquatic ecosystems. Bacterial growth efficiency (BGE) is the amount of new bacterial biomass produced per unit of organic C substrate assimilated and is a way to relate BP and BR: BGE = (BP)/(BP + BR). Estimates of BGE for natural planktonic bacteria range from <0.05 to as high as 0.6, but little is known about what might regulate this enormous range. In this paper we review the physiological and ecological bases of the regulation of BGE. Further, we assemble the literature of the past 30 years for which both BP and BR were measured in natural planktonic ecosystems and explore the relationship between BGE and BP. Although the relationship is variable, BGE varies systematically with BP and the trophic richness of the ecosystem. In the most dilute, oligotrophic systems, BGE is as low as 0.01; in the most eutrophic systems, it plateaus near 0.5. Planktonic bacteria appear to maximize carbon utilization rather than BGE. A consequence of this strategy is that maintenance energy costs (and therefore maintenance respiration) seems to be highest in oligotrophic systems.
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
Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., & Paul, E. (2013) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12113 · Cited by 3,552
Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., & Batten, K. M. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0347 · Cited by 2,176
Conant, R. T., Ryan, M. G., Ågren, G. I., Birge, H. E., Davidson, E. A., Eliasson, P. E., Evans, S. E., Frey, S. D., Giardina, C. P., Hopkins, F. M., et al. (2011) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x · Cited by 1,635
Mooshammer, M., Wanek, W., Hämmerle, I., Fuchslueger, L., Hofhansl, F., Knoltsch, A., Schnecker, J., Takriti, M., Watzka, M., Wild, B., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4694 · Cited by 1,010
Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling
Sinsabaugh, R. L., Manzoni, S., Moorhead, D. L., & Richter, A. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12113 · Cited by 991
Metadata
- Authors
- del Giorgio, P. A., & Cole, J. J.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 503-541
- ISSN
- 0066-4162 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2110224558
- Cited by
- 1,355
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.20
- 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: BACTERIAL GROWTH EFFICIENCY IN NATURAL AQUATIC SYSTEMS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.503
- The paper
- del Giorgio, P. A., & Cole, J. J. (1998). BACTERIAL GROWTH EFFICIENCY IN NATURAL AQUATIC SYSTEMS. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.503
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.