Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landscape‐Level Patterns of Microbial Community Composition and Substrate Use in Upland Forest Ecosystems

Myers, Rachel T., Zak, Donald R., White, David C., Peacock, Aaron·2001·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

The composition and diversity of biotic communities are controlled by the availability of growth‐limiting resources. Resource availability for microbial populations in soil is controlled by the amount and types of organic compounds entering soil from plant litter. Because plant communities differ in the amount and type of substrates entering soil, we reasoned that the composition and function of soil microbial communities should differ with the dominant vegetation. We tested this idea by studying two sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.)‐dominated and one oak ( Quercus spp.)‐dominated forest ecosystems in northern Lower Michigan that differ in rates of soil N cycling. We used phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis to gain insight into microbial community composition, and we used a subset of Biolog GN substrates found in root exudate to assess the metabolic capabilities soil microbial communities. Although microbial biomass did not differ among ecosystems, principal components analysis of bacterial, actinomycetal, and fungal PLFAs clearly separated the microbial communities of the three ecosystems. Similarly, principal components analysis separated microbial communities by differences in growth on carbohydrates, organic acids, and amino acids. Discrimination among microbial communities in the three ecosystems by PLFAs and substrate use occurred in spring, summer, and fall, but the individual PLFAs and substrates contributing to discrimination changed during the growing season. Our results indicate that floristically and edaphically distinct forest ecosystems also differ in microbial community composition and substrate use. This pattern was consistent across the growing season and repeatedly occurred across relatively large land areas.

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 · 10.2136/sssaj2001.652359x

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Myers, R. T., Zak, D. R., White, D. C., & Peacock, A.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
65
Issue
2
Pages
359-367
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2157110683
Cited by
373
References
23
FWCI
20.99
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: Landscape‐Level Patterns of Microbial Community Composition and Substrate Use in Upland Forest Ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2001.652359x
The paper
Myers, R. T., Zak, D. R., White, D. C., & Peacock, A. (2001). Landscape‐Level Patterns of Microbial Community Composition and Substrate Use in Upland Forest Ecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2001.652359x

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.