The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Survival and growth of bacteria introduced into soil
Open accessAbstract
A study was conducted of the survival and multiplication of bacteria introduced into soil. In a loam, the populations of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar phaseoti, R. meliloti, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Micrococcus flavus, Corynebacterium sp., Pseudomonas sp. 2K and Pseudomonas sp. 1G declined by one to two orders of magnitude. Some of these species initially increased in numbers in this soil upon the addition of 0.1 or 1.0% glucose, but others did not proliferate. However, the populations of all species subsequently declined. The patterns of decline of A. tumefaciens, Pseudomonas sp. B4, Streptococcus faecalis and M.flavus in silt loam were similar. Because the patterns of decline of none of the test species were similar in unamended sterile soil or, except for M. flavus and S. faecalis, in sterile buffer, the reductions in population sizes were not a result of toxins already present in the soil or starvation, but were related to the activities of other microorganisms. The population size of an asporogenous strain of Bacillus subtilis declined markedly in nonsterile and sterile soil and in buffer, and it fell to a small number in nonsterile soil amended with 0.1% glucose. Because cellular slime molds, bacteriophages, bdellovibrios and myxobacteria were not found, they are not responsible for the reduction in numbers of the test species. Protozoa increased in number as the populations of the test species fell. The extents of decline of A. tumefaciens,Pseudomonas sp. 2K, Corynebacterium sp. and M. flavus were diminished if glucose-amended or unamended soil was treated with cycloheximide, a eucaryotic inhibitor. Antibiotic-producing and lytic microorganisms able to destroy the test species were present, their numbers varying with the test organism. It is suggested that the populations of bacteria introduced into soil may be reduced because of their susceptibility to predation, starvation or possibly antibiotic-producing or lytic microorganisms.
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
Cited by
Environmental applications of immobilized microbial cells: A review
Cassidy, M. B., Lee, H., & Trevors, J. T. (1996) · Journal of Industrial Microbiology · doi:10.1007/bf01570068 · Cited by 555
Volatile Mediated Interactions Between Bacteria and Fungi in the Soil
Effmert, U., Kalderás, J., Warnke, R., & Piechulla, B. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10886-012-0135-5 · Cited by 526
Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani Damping-Off of Tomato with Bacillus subtilis RB14
Asaka, O., & Shoda, M. (1996) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.62.11.4081-4085.1996 · Cited by 508
Mizumoto, S., Hirai, M., & Shoda, M. (2006) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-006-0389-3 · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Acea, M. J., Moore, C. R., & Alexander, M.
- Venue
- Soil Biology and Biochemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1988
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 509-515
- ISSN
- 0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2079121906
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Survival and growth of bacteria introduced into soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0038-0717(88)90066-1
- The paper
- Acea, M. J., Moore, C. R., & Alexander, M. (1988). Survival and growth of bacteria introduced into soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(88)90066-1
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.