The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods for evaluating human impact on soil microorganisms based on their activity, biomass, and diversity in agricultural soils
Abstract
The present review is focused on microbiological methods used in agricultural soils accustomed to human disturbance. Recent developments in soil biology are analyzed with the aim of highlighting gaps in knowledge, unsolved research questions, and controversial results. Activity rates (basal respiration, N mineralization) and biomass are used as overall indices for assessing microbial functions in soil and can be supplemented by biomass ratios (C : N, C : P, and C : S) and eco‐physiological ratios (soil organic C : microbial‐biomass C, q CO 2, q N min). The community structure can be characterized by functional groups of the soil microbial biomass such as fungi and bacteria, Gram‐negative and Gram‐positive bacteria, or by biotic diversity. Methodological aspects of soil microbial indices are assessed, such as sampling, pretreatment of samples, and conversion factors of data into biomass values. Microbial‐biomass C (µg (g soil)–1) can be estimated by multiplying total PLFA (nmol (g soil)–1) by the FPLFA‐factor of 5.8 and DNA (µg (g soil)–1) by the FDNA‐factor of 6.0. In addition, the turnover of the soil microbial biomass is appreciated as a key process for maintaining nutrient cycles in soil. Examples are briefly presented that show the direction of human impact on soil microorganisms by the methods evaluated. These examples are taken from research on organic farming, reduced tillage, de‐intensification of land‐use management, degradation of peatland, slurry application, salinization, heavy‐metal contamination, lignite deposition, pesticide application, antibiotics, TNT, and genetically modified plants.
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
Indicators for evaluating soil quality
Schloter, M., Dilly, O., & Munch, J. C. (2003) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(03)00085-9 · Cited by 762
Ergosterol and microbial biomass relationship in soil
Djajakirana, G., Joergensen, R. G., & Meyer, B. (1996) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/bf00334573 · Cited by 350
Self-citationMagid, J., Luxhøi, J., & Lyshede, O. B. (2004) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/b:plso.0000016565.14718.4b · Cited by 69
Cited by
Fungal traits that drive ecosystem dynamics on land
Treseder, K. K., & Lennon, J. T. (2015) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00001-15 · Cited by 625
Effects of polystyrene nanoparticles on the microbiota and functional diversity of enzymes in soil
Awet, T. T., Kohl, Y., Meier, F., Straskraba, S., Grün, A.-L., Ruf, T., Jost, C., Drexel, R., Tunc, E., & Emmerling, C. (2018) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-018-0140-6 · Cited by 389
Self-citationMeasuring the effects of pesticides on bacterial communities in soil: A critical review
Imfeld, G., & Vuilleumier, S. (2012) · European Journal of Soil Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.11.010 · Cited by 323
Józefowska, A., Pietrzykowski, M., Woś, B., Cajthaml, T., & Frouz, J. (2017) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.008 · Cited by 111
Scheller, E., & Rainer Georg Joergensen, †. (2008) · Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science · doi:10.1002/jpln.200700272 · Cited by 80
Metadata
- Authors
- Joergensen, R. G., & Emmerling, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 169
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 295-309
- ISSN
- 1436-8730 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2624
- OpenAlex
- W1990779736
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Methods for evaluating human impact on soil microorganisms based on their activity, biomass, and diversity in agricultural soils. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jpln.200521941
- The paper
- Joergensen, R. G., & Emmerling, C. (2006). Methods for evaluating human impact on soil microorganisms based on their activity, biomass, and diversity in agricultural soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200521941
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.