Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web of Conferences
Volume 22, 2015
International Conference on Engineering Technology and Application (ICETA 2015)
Article Number 04015
Number of page(s) 6
Section Civil and Environmental Engineering
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20152204015
Published online 09 July 2015
  1. McNaughton S. J. 1977. Diversity and stability of ecological communities: a comment on the role of empiricism in ecology. American Naturalist, 515–525. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Tilman D. et al. 1998. Diversity ‐ Stability Relationships: Statistical Inevitability or Ecological Consequence? The American Naturalist, 151 (3): 277–282. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gross K. et al. 2014. Species Richness and the Temporal Stability of Biomass Production: A New Analysis of Recent Biodiversity Experiments. The American Naturalist, 183(1): 1–12. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Rao, N. S. S. 1995. Soil microorganisms and plant growth (No. Ed. 3). Science Publishers, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  5. Singh J. S. et al. 2011. Efficient soil microorganisms: a new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 140(3): 339–353. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lau J. A. & Lennon J. T. 2012. Rapid responses of soil microorganisms improve plant fitness in novel environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(35): 14058–14062. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell C. D. et al. 1997. Use of rhizosphere carbon sources in sole carbon source tests to discriminate soil microbial communities. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 30(1): 33–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Van Elsas J. D. et al. 2012. Microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by a bacterial pathogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4): 1159–1164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rastogi G. & Sani R K. 2011. Molecular techniques to assess microbial community structure, function, and dynamics in the environment, Microbes and Microbial Technology. Springer New York, 29–57. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Smit E. et al. 2001. Diversity and seasonal fluctuations of the dominant members of the bacterial soil community in a wheat field as determined by cultivation and molecular methods. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67(5): 2284–2291. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Widmer F. et al. 2001. Assessing soil biological characteristics: a comparison of bulk soil community DNA-, PLFA-, and Biolog™-analyses. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33(7): 1029–1036. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu B. et al. 2015. Effects of chlortetracycline on soil microbial communities: Comparisons of enzyme activities to the functional diversity via Biolog EcoPlates™, European Journal of Soil Biology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2015.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhang H. et al. 2013. Changes in soil microbial functional diversity under different vegetation restoration patterns for Hulunbeier Sandy Land. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(1): 38–44. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nautiyal C. S. 2010. Chauhan P S, Bhatia C R. Changes in soil physicochemical properties and microbial functional diversity due to 14 years of conversion of grassland to organic agriculture in semi-arid agro ecosystem. Soil and Tillage Research, 109(2): 55–60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Guanghua W. et al. 2008. Effects of fertilization on bacterial community structure and function in a black soil of Dehui region estimated by Biolog and PCR-DGGE methods. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(1): 220–226. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Deng J. et al. 2014. Stability, genotypic and phenotypic diversity of Shewanella baltica in the redox transition zone of the Baltic Sea. Environmental microbiology, 16(6): 1854–1866. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang T. Y. et al. 2014 Screening heterotrophic microalgal strains by using the Biolog method for biofuel production from organic wastewater. J. Algal Research, 6: 175–179. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ling Q. et al. 2012. Analysis of Carbon Metabolism Diversity Characters of Air Microbes in Huangshan Scenic Spot Using Biolog-Eco Method. Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 1: 008. [Google Scholar]
  19. Schutter M. & Dick R. 2001. Shifts in substrate utilization potential and structure of soil microbial communities in response to carbon substrates. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 33(11): 1481–1491. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bååth E. et al. 1998. Effect of metal-rich sludge amendments on the soil microbial community. Applied and environmental Microbiology, 64(1): 238–245. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cai Y. F. et al. 2010. Soil bacterial functional diversity is associated with the decline of Eucalyptus gomphocephala. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(6): 1047–1057. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jia X. et al. 2013. Effects of Biolog Ecoplates Incubation Time on Analysis Results in Microbial Ecology Researches. Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 01:10–19. [Google Scholar]
  23. Weber K. P. et al. 2007. Data transformations in the analysis of community-level substrate utilization data from microplates. Journal of microbiological methods, 69(3): 461–469. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Smalla K. et al. 1998. Analysis of BIOLOG GN substrate utilization patterns by microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64(4): 1220–1225. [Google Scholar]
  25. Haack S. K. et al. 1995. Analysis of factors affecting the accuracy, reproducibility, and interpretation of microbial community carbon source utilization patterns, J. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 61(4): 1458–1468. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yang Y. et al. 2009. Influences of Bacillus on metabolic functions of microbial communities in fishponds. Journal of Microbiology, 3: 003. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhang Y. Y. et al. 2009. An amendment on information extraction of Biolog EcoPlateTM. Microbiology, 36(7): 1083–1091. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tian Y. N. & Wang H. Q. 2011. Application of Biolog to study of environmental microbial function diversity. Environmental Science Technology, 34(3): 50–57. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.