The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Distribution of aerobic bacteria, protozoa, algae, and fungi in deep subsurface sediments
Abstract
The distribution of microorganisms in deep subsurface profiles was determined at three sites at the Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina. Acridine orange direct counts (AODC) of bacteria were highest in surface soil samples and declined to the 106 to 107 per gram range in the subsurface, but then did not decline further with depth. In the subsurface, AODC values varied from layer to layer, the highest being found in samples from sandy aquifer formations and the lowest in clayey interbed layers. Sandy aquifer sediments also contained the highest numbers of viable bacteria as determined by aerobic spread plate counts (CFU) on a dilute heterotrophic medium. In some of these samples bacterial CFU values approached 100% of the AODC values. Viable protozoa (amoebae and flagellates, but no ciliates) were found in samples with high bacterial CFU values. A variety of green algae, phytoflagellates, diatoms, and a few cyanobacteria were found at low population densities in samples from two of the three boreholes. Low numbers of fungi were evenly distributed throughout the profiles at all three sites. Microbial population density estimates correlated positively with sand content and pore‐water pH, and negatively with clay content and pore‐water metal concentration. A large diversity of prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms was found in samples with high population densities. A survey of bacterial strains isolated from subsurface samples revealed associations of gram‐positive bacteria with high clay sediments and gram‐negative bacteria with sandy sediments. The ability to deposit lipophilic storage material (presumably poly‐ß‐hydroxybutyrate) was found in a high proportion of isolates from sandy sediments, but only rarely in isolates from high clay sediments.
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
Prokaryotes: The unseen majority
Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., & Wiebe, W. J. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578 · Cited by 4,871
The biomass distribution on Earth
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115 · Cited by 3,723
“For the terrestrial deep subsurface, most early estimates of the abundance of protists in aquifers were based on cultivation-based methods, which are likely not to accurately represent the distribution of protists (136, 259).”
BackgroundMethodDeep subsurface microbial processes
Lovley, D. R., & Chapelle, F. H. (1995) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/95rg01305 · Cited by 489
The biomass and biodiversity of the continental subsurface
Magnabosco, C., Lin, L.-H., Dong, H., Bomberg, M., Ghiorse, W., Stan-Lotter, H., Pedersen, K., Kieft, T. L., van Heerden, E., & Onstott, T. C. (2018) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0221-6 · Cited by 473
Self-citationRichter, D. D., & Markewitz, D. (1995) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1312764 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Sinclair, J. L., & Ghiorse, W. C.
- Venue
- Geomicrobiology Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1989-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 15-31
- ISSN
- 0149-0451 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-0529
- OpenAlex
- W2005506686
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.17
- 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: Distribution of aerobic bacteria, protozoa, algae, and fungi in deep subsurface sediments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01490458909377847
- The paper
- Sinclair, J. L., & Ghiorse, W. C. (1989). Distribution of aerobic bacteria, protozoa, algae, and fungi in deep subsurface sediments. Geomicrobiology Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490458909377847
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.