The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contrasting Soil pH Effects on Fungal and Bacterial Growth Suggest Functional Redundancy in Carbon Mineralization
Open accessAbstract
The influence of pH on the relative importance of the two principal decomposer groups in soil, fungi and bacteria, was investigated along a continuous soil pH gradient at Hoosfield acid strip at Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom. This experimental location provides a uniform pH gradient, ranging from pH 8.3 to 4.0, within 180 m in a silty loam soil on which barley has been continuously grown for more than 100 years. We estimated the importance of fungi and bacteria directly by measuring acetate incorporation into ergosterol to measure fungal growth and leucine and thymidine incorporation to measure bacterial growth. The growth-based measurements revealed a fivefold decrease in bacterial growth and a fivefold increase in fungal growth with lower pH. This resulted in an approximately 30-fold increase in fungal importance, as indicated by the fungal growth/bacterial growth ratio, from pH 8.3 to pH 4.5. In contrast, corresponding effects on biomass markers for fungi (ergosterol and phospholipid fatty acid [PLFA] 18:2ω6,9) and bacteria (bacterial PLFAs) showed only a two- to threefold difference in fungal importance in the same pH interval. The shift in fungal and bacterial importance along the pH gradient decreased the total carbon mineralization, measured as basal respiration, by only about one-third, possibly suggesting functional redundancy. Below pH 4.5 there was universal inhibition of all microbial variables, probably derived from increased inhibitory effects due to release of free aluminum or decreasing plant productivity. To investigate decomposer group importance, growth measurements provided significantly increased sensitivity compared with biomass-based measurements.
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
Cites
The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities
Fierer, N., & Jackson, R. B. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0507535103 · Cited by 5,711
Cited by
Biochar effects on soil biota – A review
Lehmann, J., Rillig, M. C., Thies, J., Masiello, C. A., Hockaday, W. C., & Crowley, D. (2011) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022 · Cited by 5,074
Zhu, X., Chen, B., Zhu, L., & Xing, B. (2017) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.032 · Cited by 1,021
Land use driven change in soil pH affects microbial carbon cycling processes
Malik, A. A., Puissant, J., Buckeridge, K. M., Goodall, T., Jehmlich, N., Chowdhury, S., Gweon, H. S., Peyton, J. M., Mason, K. E., van Agtmaal, M., et al. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05980-1 · Cited by 958
Biochar mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial
Jones, D. L., Rousk, J., Edwards-Jones, G., DeLuca, T. H., & Murphy, D. V. (2012) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.012 · Cited by 937
Self-citationPokharel, P., Ma, Z., & Chang, S. X. (2020) · Biochar · doi:10.1007/s42773-020-00039-1 · Cited by 390
Metadata
- Authors
- Rousk, J., Brookes, P. C., & Bååth, E.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2009-03-15
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1589-1596
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2164695205
- Cited by
- 1,673
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 69.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Contrasting Soil pH Effects on Fungal and Bacterial Growth Suggest Functional Redundancy in Carbon Mineralization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.02775-08
- The paper
- Rousk, J., Brookes, P. C., & Bååth, E. (2009). Contrasting Soil pH Effects on Fungal and Bacterial Growth Suggest Functional Redundancy in Carbon Mineralization. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02775-08
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.