Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of soil biological properties as potential bioindicators of soil health

Pankhurst, CE, Hawke, BG, McDonald, HJ, Kirkby, CA, Buckerfield, JC, Michelsen, P, O'Brien, KA, Gupta, VVSR, Doube, BM·1995·Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

Abstract

Two long-term field trials in South Australia were used to detect and characterise changes in soil biological properties that were a consequence of different agricultural management. The properties examined were total bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes; total pseudomonads; cellulolytic bacteria and fungi; mycorrhizal fungi; plant root pathogens (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici, Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium irregulare); bacterial-feeding protozoa; soil mesofauna (collembola and acari); earthworms; microbial biomass; C and N mineralisation; in situ CO2 respiration; cellulose decomposition; and soil enzyme activity (peptidase, phosphatase, sulfatase). The sensitivity of these biological properties was assessed to tillage (no-tillage v. conventional cultivation), stubble management (stubble retained v. stubble harvested), crop rotation (continuous wheat v. wheat-sown pasture), and N fertilisation (nil v. 80 kg N/ha applied during the crop phase). Tillage, stubble management, crop rotation, and N fertilisation significantly (P<0.01) affected C mineralisation and microbial biomass. Tillage with stubble management significantly affected root pathogenic fungi, protozoa, collembola, earthworms, and cellulose decomposition. Crop rotation affected mycorrhizal fungi, protozoa, and soil peptidase activity, and N fertiliser had a significant effect on mycorrhizal fungi, protozoa, and cellulose decomposition. As these biological properties are responsive to agricultural management, they may have potential as bioindicators. Total bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes, cellulosedecomposing bacteria and fungi, soil phosphatase and sulfatase activity, and N mineralisation were less affected by these treatments and may therefore have limited potential as bioindicators.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/ea9951015

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
Pankhurst, C., Hawke, B., McDonald, H., Kirkby, C., Buckerfield, J., Michelsen, P., O'Brien, K., Gupta, V., & Doube, B.
Venue
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture
Published
1995
Volume
35
Issue
7
Pages
1015
ISSN
0816-1089 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993244174
Cited by
298
References
0
FWCI
4.97
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: Evaluation of soil biological properties as potential bioindicators of soil health. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/ea9951015
The paper
Pankhurst, C., Hawke, B., McDonald, H., Kirkby, C., Buckerfield, J., Michelsen, P., O'Brien, K., Gupta, V., & Doube, B. (1995). Evaluation of soil biological properties as potential bioindicators of soil health. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1071/ea9951015

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.