| Value |
<=1
%
|
| Organism |
prokaryote |
| Reference |
Hugenholtz P. Exploring prokaryotic diversity in the genomic era. Genome Biol. 2002 3(2):reviews 0003. p. 1 left column 1st paragraphPubMed ID11864374
|
| Primary Source |
Staley JT, Konopka A. Measurement of in situ activities of nonphotosynthetic microorganisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1985 39: 321-46.PubMed ID3904603
|
| Method |
This figure was estimated by comparing plate counts
with direct microscopic counts of microorganisms in environmental
samples-it has been called the “great plate-count
anomaly” [Primary source] |
| Comments |
[primary source, p. 325] 'Indeed, as a general rule researchers have found
that the maximum recovery of heterotrophic bacteria is 1% of the total direct count using plating procedures or other viable enumeration methods from a variety of oligotrophic to mesotrophic aquatic habitats, whereas higher recoveries (approaching 80-90%) can be achieved from eutrophic habitats [refs 100 and 107 in Primary source]'. On p. 327 of primary source fig. 1 and 2 show a 2 order of magnitude difference between the number of bacteria (at a lake) arrived at by direct microscopic count and the number of bacteria arrived at by viable plate count. |
| Entered by |
Uri M |
| ID |
105600 |