Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 5,079

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

Fierer, Noah, Bradford, Mark A., Jackson, Robert B.·2007·Ecology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/05-1839

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 5,079

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.