The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL BACTERIA
Abstract
Although researchers have begun cataloging the incredible diversity of bacteria found in soil, we are largely unable to interpret this information in an ecological context, including which groups of bacteria are most abundant in different soils and why. With this study, we examined how the abundances of major soil bacterial phyla correspond to the biotic and abiotic characteristics of the soil environment to determine if they can be divided into ecologically meaningful categories. To do this, we collected 71 unique soil samples from a wide range of ecosystems across North America and looked for relationships between soil properties and the relative abundances of six dominant bacterial phyla (Acidobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, alpha-Proteobacteria, and the beta-Proteobacteria). Of the soil properties measured, net carbon (C) mineralization rate (an index of C availability) was the best predictor of phylum-level abundances. There was a negative correlation between Acidobacteria abundance and C mineralization rates (r2 = 0.26, P < 0.001), while the abundances of beta-Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were positively correlated with C mineralization rates (r2 = 0.35, P < 0.001 and r2 = 0.34, P < 0.001, respectively). These patterns were explored further using both experimental and meta-analytical approaches. We amended soil cores from a specific site with varying levels of sucrose over a 12-month period to maintain a gradient of elevated C availabilities. This experiment confirmed our survey results: there was a negative relationship between C amendment level and the abundance of Acidobacteria (r2 = 0.42, P < 0.01) and a positive relationship for both Bacteroidetes and beta-Proteobacteria (r2 = 0.38 and 0.70, respectively; P < 0.01 for each). Further support for a relationship between the relative abundances of these bacterial phyla and C availability was garnered from an analysis of published bacterial clone libraries from bulk and rhizosphere soils. Together our survey, experimental, and meta-analytical results suggest that certain bacterial phyla can be differentiated into copiotrophic and oligotrophic categories that correspond to the r- and K-selected categories used to describe the ecological attributes of plants and animals. By applying the copiotroph-oligotroph concept to soil microorganisms we can make specific predictions about the ecological attributes of various bacterial taxa and better understand the structure and function of soil bacterial communities.
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
Grime, J. P. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283244 · Cited by 5,754 · cited 1×
“An expanded classification scheme, similar to that described by Grime (1977), may prove to be more useful for assigning bacterial taxa into ecologically meaningful groups.”
MethodThe 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
Self-citationProkaryotic 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
Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Knight, R., & Fierer, N. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00335-09 · Cited by 4,063
Self-citationMicrobial hotspots and hot moments in soil: Concept & review
Kuzyakov, Y., & Blagodatskaya, E. (2015) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.025 · Cited by 1,872
Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes
Fierer, N., Leff, J. W., Adams, B. J., Nielsen, U. N., Bates, S. T., Lauber, C. L., Owens, S., Gilbert, J. A., Wall, D. H., & Caporaso, J. G. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1215210110 · Cited by 1,643
Self-citationDistinct soil microbial diversity under long-term organic and conventional farming
Hartmann, M., Frey, B., Mayer, J., Mäder, P., & Widmer, F. (2015) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2014.210 · Cited by 1,496
Jones, R. T., Robeson, M. S., Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Knight, R., & Fierer, N. (2009) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2008.127 · Cited by 1,230
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fierer, N., Bradford, M. A., & Jackson, R. B.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1354-1364
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2123388186
- Cited by
- 5,079
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 44.36
- 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: TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL BACTERIA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/05-1839
- The paper
- Fierer, N., Bradford, M. A., & Jackson, R. B. (2007). TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL BACTERIA. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-1839
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.