MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026321650 · doi:10.1139/w04-037

Denitrifying bacteria in bulk and maize-rhizospheric soil: diversity and N<sub>2</sub>O-reducing abilities

2004· article· en· W2026321650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dominique Chèneby, S Perrez, C Devroe, S. Hallet, Y. Couton, Florian Bizouard, G Iuretig, J. C. Germon, Laurent Philippot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique
KeywordsDenitrifying bacteriaRhizosphereBiologyRestriction fragment length polymorphismTerminal restriction fragment length polymorphismDenitrificationBacteria16S ribosomal RNABulk soilNitrateAgronomyNitrogenPolymerase chain reactionChemistryEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the rhizosphere of maize on the diversity of denitrifying bacteria. Community structure comparison was performed by constructing a collection of isolates recovered from bulk and maize planted soil. A total of 3240 nitrate-reducing isolates were obtained and 188 of these isolates were identified as denitrifiers based on their ability to reduce nitrate to N2O or N2. 16S rDNA fragments amplified from the denitrifying isolates were analysed by restriction fragment length polymorphism. Isolates were grouped according to their restriction patterns, and 16S rDNA of representatives from each group were sequenced. A plant dependent enrichment of Agrobacterium-related denitrifiers has been observed resulting in a modification of the structure of the denitrifying community between planted and bulk soil. In addition, the predominant isolates in the rhizosphere soil were not able to reduce N2O while dominant isolates in the bulk soil evolve N2 as a denitrification product.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207