The DOI matches its Crossref record.
In-Field Spatial Variability in the Degradation of the Phenyl-Urea Herbicide Isoproturon Is the Result of Interactions between Degradative Sphingomonas spp. and Soil pH
Open accessAbstract
Substantial spatial variability in the degradation rate of the phenyl-urea herbicide isoproturon (IPU) [3-(4-isopropylphenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea] has been shown to occur within agricultural fields, with implications for the longevity of the compound in the soil, and its movement to ground- and surface water. The microbial mechanisms underlying such spatial variability in degradation rate were investigated at Deep Slade field in Warwickshire, United Kingdom. Most-probable-number analysis showed that rapid degradation of IPU was associated with proliferation of IPU-degrading organisms. Slow degradation of IPU was linked to either a delay in the proliferation of IPU-degrading organisms or apparent cometabolic degradation. Using enrichment techniques, an IPU-degrading bacterial culture (designated strain F35) was isolated from fast-degrading soil, and partial 16S rRNA sequencing placed it within the Sphingomonas group. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) of PCR-amplified bacterial community 16S rRNA revealed two bands that increased in intensity in soil during growth-linked metabolism of IPU, and sequencing of the excised bands showed high sequence homology to the Sphingomonas group. However, while F35 was not closely related to either DGGE band, one of the DGGE bands showed 100% partial 16S rRNA sequence homology to an IPU-degrading Sphingomonas sp. (strain SRS2) isolated from Deep Slade field in an earlier study. Experiments with strains SRS2 and F35 in soil and liquid culture showed that the isolates had a narrow pH optimum (7 to 7.5) for metabolism of IPU. The pH requirements of IPU-degrading strains of Sphingomonas spp. could largely account for the spatial variation of IPU degradation rates across the field.
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
Matthiessen, J. N., & Kirkegaard, J. A. (2006) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352680600611543 · Cited by 473
Singh, B. K., Walker, A., Morgan, J. A. W., & Wright, D. J. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.9.5198-5206.2003 · Cited by 337
Self-citationRiedo, J., Wettstein, F. E., Rösch, A., Herzog, C., Banerjee, S., Büchi, L., Charles, R., Wächter, D., Martin-Laurent, F., Bucheli, T. D., et al. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c06405 · Cited by 320
Influence of organic amendment on the biodegradation and movement of pesticides
Briceño, G., Palma, G., & Durán, N. (2007) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643380600987406 · Cited by 187
Metadata
- Authors
- Bending, G. D., Lincoln, S. D., Sørensen, S. R., Morgan, J. A. W., Aamand, J., & Walker, A.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 827-834
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2148955038
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.54
- 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: In-Field Spatial Variability in the Degradation of the Phenyl-Urea Herbicide Isoproturon Is the Result of Interactions between Degradative Sphingomonas spp. and Soil pH. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.69.2.827-834.2003
- The paper
- Bending, G. D., Lincoln, S. D., Sørensen, S. R., Morgan, J. A. W., Aamand, J., & Walker, A. (2003). In-Field Spatial Variability in the Degradation of the Phenyl-Urea Herbicide Isoproturon Is the Result of Interactions between Degradative Sphingomonas spp. and Soil pH. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.69.2.827-834.2003
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.