The result shown above shows that the first part of the Introduction of the IntechOpen chapter does not match the Nature Reviews 2003 paper. But if we scroll a bit down, there are long stretches of matching text. That looks indeed like plagiarism.
Also note that I used the raw copied/pasted text from the Lovley paper, with mangled words like "asso- ciated" (line breaks) and "degradation18,36" (citations), which are not seen by SimTexter as perfect matches. One could clean up the copied text, but that is a lot of work.
Further down, there is much more matching text. It's whole paragraphs. I have cleaned up the Lovley text a bit, so the matches are a bit longer and more clear.
After comparing source text and the IntechOpen text, some parts are a nearly perfect match, but there are also some parts from the chapter that do not match that source. Below, section 4 about microarrays does not match the Lovley article. Could that be taken from another paper?
Let's take part of a sentence from that paragraph and put that into Google Scholar again. And yes, we find another source document, Singh and Nagaraj 2006. It's older and well-cited. Let's download that one and put it into SimTexter.
And bingo! While sections 2 and 7-8 of the @IntechOpen chapter matched the Lovley 2003 paper, sections 3-6 are a nearly perfect hit to the Singh and Nagaraj 2006 paper.
I can repeat this process a couple of times to maybe find the sources of sections 9-12, but the point has been made and a girl gotta move on. Let's look at the figures and tables in the IntechOpen chapter.
Often, figures and tables in plagiarized articles might also have been copied from the same sources. Figure 1 from the 2013 chapter surely seems inspired by Figure 1 from the Singh and Nagaraj paper. Although a bit more colorful, the text boxes are the same.
Of particular note, the Singh and Nagaraj 2006 paper, which text was 'borrowed' to write complete sections 3-6 of the @IntechOpen chapter, is NOT listed in the references at the end of the chapter.
The Lovley 2003 paper, which was copied in sections 2, 7, and 8 IS listed in the references as #48 / 'Lovley 2003'. But the only place where that paper is cited is in section 4, so nowhere near the copied text.