The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interactions of Bacteria, Fungi, and their Nematode Grazers: Effects on Nutrient Cycling and Plant Growth
Abstract
The most common system responses attributed to microfloral grazers (protozoa, nematodes, microarthropods) in the literature are increased plant growth, increased N uptake by plants, decreased or increased bacterial populations, increased CO 2 evolution, increased N and P mineralization, and increased substrate utilization. Based on this evidence in the literature, a conceptual model was proposed in which microfloral grazers were considered as separate state variables. To help evaluate the model, the effects of microbivorous nematodes on microbial growth, nutrient cycling, plant growth, and nutrient uptake were examined with reference to activities within and outside of the rhizosphere. Blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis) was grown in gnotobiotic microcosms containing sandy loam soil low in inorganic N, with or without chitin amendments as a source of organic N. The soil was inoculated with bacteria (Pseudomonas paucimobilis or P. stutzeri) or fungus (Fusarium oxysporum), with half the bacterial microcosms inoculated with bacterial—feeding nematodes (Pelodera sp. or Acrobeloides sp.) and half the fungal microcosms inoculated with fungal—feeding nematodes (Aphelenchus avenae). Similar results were obtained from both the unamended and the chitin—amended experiments. Bacteria, fungi, and both trophic groups of nematodes were more abundant in the rhizosphere than in nonrhizosphere soil. All treatments containing nematodes and bacteria had higher bacterial densities than similar treatments without nematodes. Plants growing in soil with bacteria and bacterial—feeding nematodes grew faster and initially took up more N than plants in soil with only bacteria, because of increased N mineralization by bacteria, NH 4+—N excretion by nematodes, and greater initial exploitation of soil by plant roots. Addition of fungal—feeding nematodes did not increase plant growth or N uptake because these nematodes excreted less NH 4+—N than did bacterial—feeding nematode populations and because the N mineralized by the fungus alone was sufficient for plant growth. Total shoot P was significantly greater in treatments with fungus or Pelodera sp. than in the sterile plant control or treatments with plants plus Pseudomonas stutzeri until the end of the experiment. The additional mineralization that occurs due to the activities of microbial grazers may be significant for increasing plant growth only when mineralization by microflora alone is insufficient to meet the plants' requirements. However, while the advantage of increased N mineralization by microbial grazers may be short—term, it may occur in many ecosystems in those short periods of ideal conditions when plant growth can occur. Thus, these results support other claims in the literature that microbial grazers may perform important regulatory functions at critical times in the growth of plants.
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
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Cited by
EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H., Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., et al. (2005) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/04-0922 · Cited by 8,046
Review of mechanisms and quantification of priming effects
Kuzyakov, Y., Friedel, J. K., & Stahr, K. (2000) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(00)00084-5 · Cited by 3,040
Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions
Burns, R. G., DeForest, J. L., Marxsen, J., Sinsabaugh, R. L., Stromberger, M. E., Wallenstein, M. D., Weintraub, M. N., & Zoppini, A. (2013) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.009 · Cited by 2,552
Effects of plant species on nutrient cycling
Hobbie, S. E. (1992) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(92)90126-v · Cited by 1,242
Biochar: A synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration
Spokas, K. A., Cantrell, K. B., Novak, J. M., Archer, D. W., Ippolito, J. A., Collins, H. P., Boateng, A. A., Lima, I. M., Lamb, M. C., McAloon, A. J., et al. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0069 · Cited by 1,014
Metadata
- Authors
- Ingham, R. E., Trofymow, J. A., Ingham, E. R., & Coleman, D. C.
- Venue
- Ecological Monographs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1985-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 119-140
- ISSN
- 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7015
- OpenAlex
- W2088335415
- Cited by
- 1,170
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.63
- 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: Interactions of Bacteria, Fungi, and their Nematode Grazers: Effects on Nutrient Cycling and Plant Growth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1942528
- The paper
- Ingham, R. E., Trofymow, J. A., Ingham, E. R., & Coleman, D. C. (1985). Interactions of Bacteria, Fungi, and their Nematode Grazers: Effects on Nutrient Cycling and Plant Growth. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942528
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.