The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of soil biological properties as potential bioindicators of soil health
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.
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
Heavy metals and soil microbes
Abdu, N., Abdullahi, A. A., & Abdulkadir, A. (2017) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-016-0587-x · Cited by 478
GISQ, a multifunctional indicator of soil quality
Velasquez, E., Lavelle, P., & Andrade, M. (2007) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.06.013 · Cited by 240
Environmental Protection Strategies: An Overview
Malik, A., Rahman, M., Ansari, M. I., Masood, F., & Grohmann, E. (2012) · Environmental Protection Strategies for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1591-2_1 · Cited by 11
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
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- 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.