The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Resource Partitioning between Bacteria, Fungi, and Protists in the Detritusphere of an Agricultural Soil
Open accessAbstract
The flow of plant-derived carbon in soil is a key component of global carbon cycling. Conceptual models of trophic carbon fluxes in soil have assumed separate bacterial and fungal energy channels in the detritusphere, controlled by both substrate complexity and recalcitrance. However, detailed understanding of the key populations involved and niche-partitioning between them is limited. Here, a microcosm experiment was performed to trace the flow of detritusphere C from substrate analogues (glucose, cellulose) and plant biomass amendments (maize leaves, roots) in an agricultural soil. Carbon flow was traced by rRNA stable isotope probing and amplicon sequencing across three microbial kingdoms. Distinct lineages within the Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Gammaproteobacteria, Basidiomycota, Ascomycota as well as Peronosporomycetes were identified as important primary substrate consumers. A dynamic succession of primary consumers was observed especially in the cellulose treatments, but also in plant amendments over time. While intra-kingdom niche partitioning was clearly observed, distinct bacterial and fungal energy channels were not apparent. Furthermore, while the diversity of primary substrate consumers did not notably increase with substrate complexity, consumer succession and secondary trophic links to bacterivorous and fungivorous microbes resulted in increased food web complexity in the more recalcitrant substrates. This suggests that rather than substrate-defined energy channels, consumer succession as well as intra- and inter-kingdom cross-feeding should be considered as mechanisms supporting food web complexity in the detritusphere.
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
Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property
Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kögel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10386 · Cited by 6,057
Nicolardot, B., Bouziri, L., Bastian, F., & Ranjard, L. (2007) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.01.012 · Cited by 156
Cited by
Clocchiatti, A., Hannula, S. E., van den Berg, M., Korthals, G., & de Boer, W. (2020) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103434 · Cited by 152
Koechli, C., Campbell, A. N., Pepe-Ranney, C., & Buckley, D. H. (2019) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.12.013 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Kramer, S., Dibbern, D., Moll, J., Huenninghaus, M., Koller, R., Krueger, D., Marhan, S., Urich, T., Wubet, T., Bonkowski, M., Buscot, F., Lueders, T., & Kandeler, E.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Microbiology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-09-26
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 1524-1524
- ISSN
- 1664-302X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2523654330
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Resource Partitioning between Bacteria, Fungi, and Protists in the Detritusphere of an Agricultural Soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01524
- The paper
- Kramer, S., Dibbern, D., Moll, J., Huenninghaus, M., Koller, R., Krueger, D., Marhan, S., Urich, T., Wubet, T., Bonkowski, M., Buscot, F., Lueders, T., & Kandeler, E. (2016). Resource Partitioning between Bacteria, Fungi, and Protists in the Detritusphere of an Agricultural Soil. Frontiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01524
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.