Cited by 350Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Ergosterol and microbial biomass relationship in soil

Djajakirana, G., Joergensen, R. G., Meyer, B.·1996·Biology and Fertility of Soils

Abstract

Ergosterol and microbial biomass C were measured in 26 arable, 16 grassland and 30 forest soils. The ergosterol content ranged from 0.75 to 12.94 micrograms g-1 soil. The geometric mean ergosterol content of grassland and forest soils was around 5.5 micrograms g-1, that of the arable soils 2.14 micrograms g-1. The ergosterol was significantly correlated with biomass C in the entire group of soils, but not in the subgroups of grassland and forest soils. The geometric mean of the ergosterol:microbial biomass C ratio was 6.0 mg g-1, increasing in the order grassland (5.1), arable land (5.4) and woodland (7.2). The ergosterol:microbial biomass C ratio had a strong negative relationship with the decreasing cation exchange capacity and soil pH, indicating that the fungal part of the total microbial biomass in soils increased when the buffer capacity decreased. The average ergosterol concentration calculated from literature data was 5.1 mg g-1 fungal dry weight. Assuming that fungi contain 46% C, the conversion factor from micrograms ergosterol to micrograms fungal biomass C is 90. For soil samples, neither saponification of the extract nor the more effective direct saponification during extraction seems to be really necessary.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00334573

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Saprotrophic fungal biomass is remarkably low in arable soils, in particular in intensively managed arable land.

    “In contrast to many soils in natural ecosystems, saprotrophic fungal biomass is remarkably low in arable soils, in particular in intensively managed arable land (Djajakirana et al., 1996;van der Wal et al., 2006a;de Vries and Bardgett, 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Djajakirana, G., Joergensen, R. G., & Meyer, B.
Affiliations
University of Göttingen (DE)
Venue
Biology and Fertility of Soils
Published
1996-06
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
299-304
ISSN
  • 0178-2762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0789
OpenAlex
W1976479763
Cited by
350
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 15
FWCI
11.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biology and Fertility of Soils (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
ergosterol, soil microbial biomass carbon, fungal biomass, soil fungal biomass, soil cation exchange capacity, soil pH, arable soils, grassland soils, forest soils, saponification

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