Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacterial and Fungal Cell‐Wall Residues in Conventional and No‐Tillage Agroecosystems

Guggenberger, Georg, Frey, Serita D., Six, Johan, Paustian, Keith, Elliott, Edward T.·1999·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Agricultural management practices have been shown to influence the decomposer community in soils, with no‐tillage (NT) systems favoring fungi as compared with conventional tillage (CT) systems. In this study, we examined six North American agroecosystems with respect to the effects of NT vs. CT management systems on the accrual of microbial cell‐wall residues in surface soil. We used total amino sugar contents to estimate living and decomposing microbial cell‐wall mass in soil and the contents of glucosamine and muramic acid to separate fungal and bacterial contributions to microbial‐derived soil organic matter (SOM). Compared with estimates of glucosamine and muramic acid present in living biomass of fungi and bacteria, total concentrations of these compounds (745–2076 mg glucosamine kg −1 soil and 37–79 mg muramic acid kg −1 soil) were larger by factors of 54 to 745 and 26 to 82, respectively. At three sites, the ratios of glucosamine to muramic acid in NT soils (32.0, 30.0, 42.2) significantly exceeded those in the respective CT soils (18.8, 22.1, 23.0) because of a higher enrichment of glucosamine. This coincided with higher values for fungal biomass, particulate organic matter carbon (POM‐C), mean weight diameter of water‐stable aggregates (MWD), and total organic carbon (TOC). Analysis of aggregate‐size classes showed that the additional glucosamine accumulated in >53‐mm aggregates but not in smaller particles. The enrichment of SOM in fungal‐derived glucosamine suggests that the accrual of hyphal cell‐wall residues is an important process in the three NT agroecosystems which leads to higher SOM storage in surface soil concurrent with an increase in aggregate stability. The other soils, having a lower clay plus silt content, exhibited no significant differences in POM‐C, MWD, and total amino sugars between NT and CT management systems. We suggest that at lower clay plus silt contents the beneficial potential for NT to sequester microbial‐derived SOM is lower because of limited physical stabilization.

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 · 10.2136/sssaj1999.6351188x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
Guggenberger, G., Frey, S. D., Six, J., Paustian, K., & Elliott, E. T.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-09
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
1188-1198
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W1983820737
Cited by
389
References
2
FWCI
12.23
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: Bacterial and Fungal Cell‐Wall Residues in Conventional and No‐Tillage Agroecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351188x
The paper
Guggenberger, G., Frey, S. D., Six, J., Paustian, K., & Elliott, E. T. (1999). Bacterial and Fungal Cell‐Wall Residues in Conventional and No‐Tillage Agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351188x

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.