Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 185 references

Life in a tight spot: Coupled dynamics of bacteria and soil across scales

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Bacterial life in soil is governed by two-way feedback with the habitat, organized by dimensionless ratios that compare cell scales to soil scales across pores, mesoscale, and landscapes.

desk verdict Solid multi-scale review that organizes soil-bacteria physics with dimensionless ratios; synthesis, not a new result, but careful about what is verified vs predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10734 v1 pith:45S5Y57J submitted 2026-07-12 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softphysics.geo-phq-bio.PE

Pablo Bravo , Tanumoy Dhar , Eloise Masquelier , Danielle Sclafani , Sujit S. Datta This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.softphysics.geo-phq-bio.PE
keywords bacterialmotilitysoilphysicsporousmediachemotaxisbiofilmsquorumsensingdimensionlessparametersrhizosphere
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that most idealized lab theories treat soil as a fixed backdrop, while real bacteria continually reshape the pores, fluids, chemistry, and solid matrix they inhabit. The authors propose that the scattered phenomenology of motility, growth, and sensing can be organized by comparing a characteristic bacterial length, time, stress, or energy scale against the matching soil scale, yielding dimensionless parameters that predict when behavior changes. They develop this program at three nested scales: a single pore, many pores (the mesoscale), and the broader landscape of roots and terrain. A sympathetic reader cares because the same feedback decides nutrient release, carbon fate, fertility, and greenhouse-gas exchange, yet most of it has been measured only in transparent mimics rather than opaque soil. The paper therefore maps mechanisms, estimates the governing ratios in natural textures, and flags which predictions still need field tests.

What carries the argument

A family of dimensionless scale comparisons—confinement ratio, shear Péclet, Weissenberg and Deborah numbers, Bingham numbers, depletion and nematic energy ratios, and chemotaxis-versus-growth or quorum-sensing time ratios—that decide which motility, growth, sensing, or matrix-rebuilding regime dominates.

What would settle it

Measure long-time bacterial diffusivity and chemotactic front speeds in natural soils of known pore-size distributions; if they fail to collapse onto the predicted min(run length, pore size) scaling or miss the predicted hop-and-trap crossover from coarse sand to fine silt, the organizing scale-comparison framework fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the richest physics of life in soil lives in the feedback between bacterial collectives and a heterogeneous, evolving habitat, and that this feedback is organized across pore, mesoscale, and landscape scales by dimensionless comparisons of bacterial versus soil rates, lengths, stresses, and energies.

Load-bearing premise

That order-of-magnitude mechanisms measured mainly in transparent, fully water-saturated lab mimics transfer well enough that the same dimensionless ratios still organize behavior in real opaque, polydisperse, intermittently dry soil.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Motility should be trap-dominated in fine silt and cross over to ordinary run-and-tumble in coarse sand, with polydispersity of the smallest pores setting spreading rates.
  • Confinement should make quorum-sensing lifestyle switches geometry-limited rather than density-limited, especially in the tightest pores and sheltered dead ends.
  • Chemotactic recruitment to roots should be strong within about a millimeter of the root surface and suppressed by pore confinement in fine textures.
  • Biofilm streamers should be rare except in the coarsest pores and strong transient flows, while EPS and mineral cementation leave durable hydraulic and mechanical memory in the landscape.
  • Continuum theories of chemotaxis, growth fronts, and active matter must treat geometry, rheology, and chemical fields as co-evolving with the cells rather than as fixed backgrounds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Texture-dependent confinement ratios could guide when microbial inoculants or irrigation pulses actually reach roots versus remaining trapped in fine pores.
  • The dual run-length and orientational bias mechanisms for chemotaxis may be an evolutionary adaptation whose mix tracks native soil pore sizes across habitats.
  • Extending the same scale-comparison program to unsaturated films, multi-species communities, and non-flagellar motility is the natural next test of whether the framework is general.
  • Landscape-scale soil memory (clogged paths, cemented grains, gas conduits) implies that past microbial activity can set the hydraulic boundary conditions for future collectives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This review synthesizes the physics of bacterial motility, growth, and sensing in soil as a two-way feedback problem across three scales: the single pore, the mesoscale of many pores, and the landscape. Its central claim is that much of the scattered phenomenology can be organized by comparing characteristic bacterial length, time, stress, or energy scales to the corresponding soil scales, yielding dimensionless groups (confinement ratio, Weissenberg, Bingham, shear and flow Péclet, τ_chemo/τ_grow, ℓ_a/L, etc.) that locate regime boundaries. The authors repeatedly separate mechanisms measured in transparent soil mimics and microfluidics from estimates and predictions for real soil, flag unmeasured parameters (e.g., polymer relaxation times of exudates/EPS), and identify open theoretical and experimental problems under the deliberate restriction to water-saturated conditions and clonal, flagellated collectives.

Significance. If the organizing frame holds, the paper supplies a portable language for connecting pore-scale biophysics to soil texture, hydraulic conductivity, rhizosphere assembly, and landscape memory—topics that matter for carbon and nitrogen cycling, plant growth, and climate response. Strengths include explicit verified-vs-predicted bookkeeping, order-of-magnitude estimates tied to cited ranges, and a clear list of falsifiable next steps (pore-size dependence of χ, streamer mediation in natural soil, texture dependence of chemotactic recruitment). The multi-scale structure and dimensionless comparisons are a genuine contribution relative to idealized Keller–Segel, Fisher–KPP, and active-matter treatments that take the environment as fixed. The work is complementary to quantitative microbial ecology and should be useful to both biological physicists and soil scientists.

major comments (2)
  1. The central organizing claim would be stronger if the many dimensionless groups introduced across §§2–4 were collected once (e.g., a single table or box) with: definition, estimated numerical range by soil texture, whether the controlling parameter has been measured for real soil polymers/exudates, and whether the predicted regime has been observed in soil versus only in mimics. As written, the ratios are introduced locally and some key inputs (λ for soil polymers in §2.3; p and a*_ai for τ_qs in §§2.5–3.1) are acknowledged as unmeasured, so the reader cannot easily assess which regime boundaries are currently predictive versus provisional. This is a presentation-of-framework issue, not a flaw in the pairwise-scale logic, but it is load-bearing for the claim that these comparisons 'organize disparate phenomena across soil conditions.'
  2. §3.1 (hotspot lifestyle competition): the estimates place τ_dep ~ 10^3–10^5 s and both τ_qs and τ_disp in ~10^1–10^3 s, so the decisive comparison is τ_qs versus τ_disp, yet both ranges fully overlap. The text correctly concludes that small local differences can tip the outcome, but it does not state what measurement would falsify the three-timescale picture or how polydispersity and intermittent flow shift the ordering. A short, explicit falsification criterion (or a worked example for one hotspot type) would make this mesoscale claim more testable and less indeterminate.
minor comments (8)
  1. Introduction and §5: the restriction to water-saturated soil is well motivated, but a one-sentence pointer earlier (Introduction) to the unsaturated complications deferred to the Conclusion would help readers who work primarily with vadose-zone systems.
  2. §2.1: the confinement ratio ℓ_run/ℓ_pore is used cleanly; consider stating once whether ℓ_pore is mean, mode, or a percolating-throat scale, since polydispersity is later invoked as important.
  3. §2.3: Wi ≳ 1 and De ≳ 1 estimates depend on λ ~ 0.1–10 s for high-MW polymers; a brief note on how sensitive the claimed swimming enhancement is to order-of-magnitude changes in λ would help.
  4. §3.2 / streamers: the Bingham comparison Bi_s ≡ σ_colony/σ_flow with σ_flow ~ 10^{-4}–10^{-3} Pa under typical soil shear is useful; clarify whether polymer-laden pore fluid (higher µ) is already folded into the upper end of the σ_flow range cited for rainfall/irrigation events.
  5. Figures 1–3: several panels are adapted from prior work; ensure scale bars and time stamps are complete in every panel (Fig. 3B notes missing scale). A short caption sentence distinguishing 'measured in mimic' from 'schematic of soil expectation' would reinforce the verified/predicted separation.
  6. Self-citation density is high but largely of independent experimental papers with methods and figures; still, where a claim rests primarily on the authors’ own mimic data (hopping-and-trapping, chemotactic fronts, cables, morphological instability, bubble entrainment), a second independent citation when available would broaden the evidentiary base.
  7. Minor prose: 'P´eclet' and similar accented terms appear inconsistently encoded; standardize. Footnote numbering and the Leonardo attribution are fine as-is.
  8. §4.2 gas bubbles: the σ_y/σ_c criterion and buoyant-stress threshold ~5σ_y are clear; a single sentence on how EPS cementation (raised σ_y) feeds back on which pathway (pore invasion vs grain displacement) dominates would close the two-way-feedback loop more tightly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: review organizes independent experimental phenomenology (including authors' own measurements) via post-hoc dimensionless comparisons rather than deriving results from fitted or self-defined inputs.

full rationale

This is a multi-scale review whose central claim is synthetic and organizational: bacterial motility, growth, and sensing in soil are governed by comparing characteristic bacterial length/time/stress/energy scales against soil scales, with the richest physics arising in two-way feedback. The paper does not present new first-principles derivations, uniqueness theorems, or quantitative predictions that reduce by construction to fitted parameters or self-defined quantities. Mechanisms (hopping-and-trapping, chemotactic fronts under confinement, cable morphogenesis, morphological instability, streamer formation, bubble entrainment, etc.) are drawn from published experiments—many by the present authors—in transparent mimics, microfluidics, and gels; those experiments supply independent data (trajectories, MSDs, morphologies, yield stresses) that are externally falsifiable and not redefined here. Dimensionless groups (confinement ratio ℓ_run/ℓ_pore, Wi, Bi, Pe_shear, au_chemo/ au_grow, au_qs/ au_disp, G_gel/G_colony, etc.) are introduced after the fact to collapse and organize the phenomenology across textures and conditions; they are not fitted to the target observables and then re-labeled as predictions. The authors repeatedly flag the scope limitation (most data from saturated transparent mimics rather than opaque, polydisperse, intermittently unsaturated soil) and distinguish verified from extrapolated phenomena. Self-citations of the authors' prior experimental papers are therefore ordinary literature support, not load-bearing circular steps. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness import, or ansatz smuggling is present. Score 1 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing presence of author self-citations that is normal for a review synthesizing a research program.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the load-bearing content is synthesis of published mechanisms plus order-of-magnitude estimates drawn from literature ranges. Free parameters are the literature-derived characteristic scales used to evaluate dimensionless numbers; axioms are standard biophysical and porous-media assumptions invoked without re-derivation; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Characteristic run speed and tumble time (v ~ 30 µm/s, τ_r ~ 1 s for E. coli)
    Taken from bulk liquid literature and used to set ℓ_run and baseline D; ranges for soil bacteria are less constrained and affect confinement-ratio predictions.
  • Pore-size and permeability ranges across soil textures
    ℓ_pore ~ 1–400 µm and k ~ 10^{-2}–10^2 µm² are literature spans used to evaluate trapping, Brinkman screening, and shear Pe; polydispersity is acknowledged but not parameterized.
  • Polymer relaxation time λ and yield stress σ_y of exudates/EPS
    λ and σ_y enter Wi and Bi; the paper notes λ has not been measured for soil polymers and uses broad ranges (σ_y ~ 10^{-1}–10^3 Pa).
  • Autoinducer production rate p, threshold a*_ai, and per-cell consumption κ
    These set τ_qs and τ_dep and thus the biofilm-vs-dispersal competition; values are order-of-magnitude estimates from model species.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flagellated bacteria perform run-and-tumble (or hop-and-trap under confinement) random walks whose long-time transport is set by run length truncated by pore geometry.
    Invoked throughout §2.1 and used to define the confinement ratio ℓ_run/ℓ_pore; based on E. coli and a few soil species.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic interactions between swimmers are screened beyond the Brinkman length √k in a porous matrix.
    §2.2; standard porous-media hydrodynamics applied to argue collective active turbulence is unlikely in soil.
  • domain assumption Chemotactic drift can be written v_c ≈ χ ∇f(a) with logarithmic sensing, and both D and χ are suppressed by the same confinement-truncated walk.
    §3.1; Keller–Segel-type description adapted to porous media without a first-principles map from P(ℓ_pore) to χ.
  • ad hoc to paper Water-saturated conditions are the appropriate first limit in which to organize the feedback physics.
    Stated in the Introduction; real soils are often partially saturated, which the Conclusion flags as a deliberate simplification.
  • ad hoc to paper Order-of-magnitude comparison of one bacterial scale to one soil scale is sufficient to locate regime boundaries when processes compete pairwise.
    Central methodological claim of the review; the Conclusion notes multi-process cases (e.g., escape bands) can produce behavior no single ratio captures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Life in a tight spot: Coupled dynamics of bacteria and soil across scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45S5Y57J

@misc{pith2026260710734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Life in a tight spot: Coupled dynamics of bacteria and soil across scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45S5Y57J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10734}
}
read the original abstract

Soil harbors much of Earth's bacterial life. The activity of these bacteria governs plant growth, carbon and nitrogen cycling, and the response of land to a changing climate. Understanding this activity is difficult, however: soil is structurally and chemically heterogeneous and optically opaque, and its bacteria not only respond to their surroundings but continually reshape them, a two-way feedback that most idealized experiments and theories overlook. Here we review how this dynamic feedback governs the physics of bacterial motility, growth, and sensing in soil across three scales -- the single pore, the mesoscale of many pores, and the broader landscape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

185 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    at- tractants

    THE MESOSCALE Across multiple pores (∼10 2 −10 3 µm), cells cou- ple to one another by consuming and secreting chemical signals into the shared pore fluid: they deplete nutrient into a gradient they then move along, grow into colonies 7 that their own metabolism sculpts, and decide to switch between these different lifestyles via e.g., quorum sensing [Fig...

  2. [2]

    In turn, the collec- tive’s own modifications to the solid soil matrix persist after the cells disperse or die, introducing memory to the landscape

    THE LANDSCAPE SCALE Across a landscape (≳10 3 µm)[Figure 3A], external sources introduce chemical gradients over millimeters to centimeters and hours to weeks, far exceeding the scales of a single cell or a migrating front. In turn, the collec- tive’s own modifications to the solid soil matrix persist after the cells disperse or die, introducing memory to...

  3. [3]

    escape bands

    CONCLUSION The feedback between bacterial collectives and the soil they live in gives rise to rich, often surprising physics— their surroundings shape how the cells move, grow, and sense, and the cells reshape their habitat in turn. The phenomena we have surveyed exemplify that feedback across scales: cells hop and trap through the pore space and migrate ...

  4. [4]

    Tecon and D

    R. Tecon and D. Or, Biophysical processes supporting the diversity of microbial life in soil, FEMS Microbiol- ogy Reviews41, 599 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    M. W. Schmidt, M. S. Torn, S. Abiven, T. Dittmar, G. Guggenberger, I. A. Janssens, M. Kleber, I. K¨ ogel- Knabner, J. Lehmann, D. A. Manning, et al., Persis- tence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property, Nature478, 49 (2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Lehmann and M

    J. Lehmann and M. Kleber, The contentious nature of soil organic matter, Nature528, 60 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    E. G. Jobb´ agy and R. B. Jackson, The vertical distri- bution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation, Ecological applications10, 423 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    J. P. Schimel and S. M. Schaeffer, Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil, Frontiers in Microbiology3, 348 (2012)

    2012

Show all 185 references
  1. [9]

    I. M. Young and J. W. Crawford, Interactions and self- organization in the soil-microbe complex, Science304, 1634 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    R. L. Wilpiszeski, J. A. Aufrecht, S. T. Retterer, M. B. Sullivan, D. E. Graham, E. M. Pierce, O. D. Zablocki, A. V. Palumbo, and D. A. Elias, Soil aggregate micro- bial communities: towards understanding microbiome interactions at biologically relevant scales, Applied and Env...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Y. Liu, Z. Xu, L. Chen, W. Xun, X. Shu, Y. Chen, X. Sun, Z. Wang, Y. Ren, Q. Shen, et al., Root colo- nization by beneficial rhizobacteria, FEMS Microbiol- ogy Reviews48, fuad066 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    M. Vos, A. B. Wolf, S. J. Jennings, and G. A. Kowalchuk, Micro-scale determinants of bacterial diver- sity in soil, FEMS Microbiology Reviews37, 936 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    D. B. Read, P. J. Gregory, and A. E. Bell, Physical properties of axenic maize root mucilage, Plant and Soil 211, 87 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Benard, M

    P. Benard, M. Zarebanadkouki, M. Brax, R. Kaltenbach, I. Jerjen, F. Marone, E. Couradeau, V. J. M. N. L. Felde, A. Kaestner, and A. Carminati, Microhydrological niches in soils: How mucilage and EPS alter the biophysical properties of the rhizosphere and other biological hotsp...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Nazari, S

    M. Nazari, S. Bickel, P. Benard, K. Mason-Jones, A. Carminati, and M. A. Dippold, Biogels in soils: plant mucilage as a biofilm matrix that shapes the rhizosphere microbial habitat, Frontiers in Plant Science12, 798992 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Naveed, M

    M. Naveed, M. A. Ahmed, P. Benard, L. K. Brown, T. S. George, A. G. Bengough, T. Roose, N. Koebernick, and P. D. Hallett, Surface tension, rheology and hydropho- bicity of rhizodeposits and seed mucilage influence soil water retention and hysteresis, Plant and Soil437, 65 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    M. Watt, W. K. Silk, and J. B. Passioura, Rates of root and organism growth, soil conditions, and temporal and spatial development of the rhizosphere, Annals of Botany97, 839 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    E. Volk, S. C. Iden, A. Furman, W. Durner, and R. Rosenzweig, Biofilm Effect on Soil Hydraulic Proper- ties: Experimental Investigation Using Soil-Grown Real Biofilm, Water Resources Research52, 5813 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Kuzyakov and E

    Y. Kuzyakov and E. Blagodatskaya, Microbial Hotspots and Hot Moments in Soil: Concept & Review, Soil Bi- ology and Biochemistry83, 184 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Spohn and Y

    M. Spohn and Y. Kuzyakov, Spatial and Temporal Dy- namics of Hotspots of Enzyme Activity in Soil as Af- fected by Living and Dead Roots—a Soil Zymography Analysis, Plant and Soil379, 67 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    R. F. Noronha, K. Sneppen, and K. Kaneko, Modeling soil as a living system: feedback between microbial ac- tivity and spatial structure, Physical Review Research 7, 023207 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Model for chemotaxis, Journal of Theoretical Biology30, 225 (1971)

    1971

  15. [23]

    R. A. Fisher, The wave of advance of advantageous genes, Annals of Eugenics7, 355 (1937)

    1937

  16. [24]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, I. Petrovsky, and N. Piscunov, A study of the diffusion equation with increase in the amount of substance, and its application to a biological problem, Bulletin of Moscow University, Mathematics and Mechanics1, 1 (1937)

    1937

  17. [25]

    M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Hydrody- namics of soft active matter, Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Active particles in complex and crowded environments, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Porter, C

    R. Porter, C. Trenado-Yuste, A. Martinez-Calvo, M. Su, N. S. Wingreen, S. S. Datta, and K. C. Huang, On the Growth and Form of Bacterial Colonies, Nature Reviews Physics7, 535 (2025), ISSN 2522-5820 14

    2025

  20. [28]

    J. A. Dijksman, A. D. Filippov, A. Al Harraq, B. V. Hokmabad, S. S. Datta, and E. Bowman, Light sheet imaging in granular materials: interdisciplinary oppor- tunities, Granular Matter28, 30 (2026)

    2026

  21. [29]

    Sharma, M

    K. Sharma, M. Palatinszky, G. Nikolov, D. Berry, and E. A. Shank, Transparent Soil Microcosms for Live-Cell Imaging and Non-Destructive Stable Isotope Probing of Soil Microorganisms, eLife9, e56275 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Downie, N

    H. Downie, N. Holden, W. Otten, A. J. Spiers, T. A. Valentine, and L. X. Dupuy, Transparent soil for imag- ing the rhizosphere, PLoS ONE7, e44276 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Zengler, K

    K. Zengler, K. Hofmockel, N. S. Baliga, et al., Eco- FABs: advancing microbiome science through standard- ized fabricated ecosystems, Nature Methods16, 567 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    J. Gao, J. Sasse, K. M. Lewald, K. Zhalnina, L. T. Corn- messer, T. A. Duncombe, Y. Yoshikuni, J. P. Vogel, M. K. Firestone, and T. R. Northen, Ecosystem Fabri- cation (EcoFAB) protocols for the construction of labo- ratory ecosystems designed to study plant–microbe in- teract...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Grossmann, W.-J

    G. Grossmann, W.-J. Guo, D. W. Ehrhardt, W. B. Frommer, R. V. Sit, S. R. Quake, and M. Meier, The RootChip: an integrated microfluidic chip for plant sci- ence, The Plant Cell23, 4234 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Massalha, E

    H. Massalha, E. Korenblum, S. Malitsky, O. H. Shapiro, and A. Aharoni, Live imaging of root–bacteria interac- tions in a microfluidics setup, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences114, 4549 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    V. J. Orphan, C. H. House, K.-U. Hinrichs, K. D. McK- eegan, and E. F. DeLong, Methane-consuming archaea revealed by directly coupled isotopic and phylogenetic analysis, Science293, 484 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    T. A. Caro, J. McFarlin, S. Jech, N. Fierer, and S. Kopf, Hydrogen stable isotope probing of lipids demonstrates slow rates of microbial growth in soil, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA120, e2211625120 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    J. E. Goldford, N. Lu, D. Baji´ c, S. Estrela, M. Tikhonov, A. Sanchez-Gorostiaga, D. Segr` e, P. Mehta, and A. Sanchez, Emergent simplicity in microbial commu- nity assembly, Science361, 469 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Dal Bello, H

    M. Dal Bello, H. Lee, A. Goyal, and J. Gore, Resource– diversity relationships in bacterial communities reflect the network structure of microbial metabolism, Nature Ecology & Evolution5, 1424 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    J. Hu, D. R. Amor, M. Barbier, G. Bunin, and J. Gore, Emergent phases of ecological diversity and dynamics mapped in microcosms, Science378, 85 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bhattacharjee and S

    T. Bhattacharjee and S. S. Datta, Bacterial Hopping and Trapping in Porous Media, Nature Communications 10, 2075 (2019)

  33. [41]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. T. Wetherington, H. Ko, C. E. FitzGerald, L. V. Luzzatto, I. A. Kov´ acs, E. M. Munro, and J. A. Nirody, Bacterial Motility Patterns Vary Smoothly with Spatial Confinement and Disorder, PRX Life4, 013002 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    A. E. Patteson, A. Gopinath, M. Goulian, and P. E. Arratia, Running and tumbling withE. coliin polymeric solutions, Scientific Reports5, 15761 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Gonzalez La Corte, C

    S. Gonzalez La Corte, C. A. Stevens, G. C´ arcamo- Oyarce, K. Ribbeck, N. S. Wingreen, and S. S. Datta, Morphogenesis of Bacterial Cables in Polymeric Envi- ronments, Science Advances11, eadq7797 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    E. K. Chu, O. Kilic, H. Cho, A. Groisman, and A. Levchenko, Self-Induced Mechanical Stress Can Trig- ger Biofilm Formation in Uropathogenic Escherichia Coli, Nature Communications9, 4087 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    H. C. Berg, ed.,E. Coli in Motion, Biological and Medi- cal Physics, Biomedical Engineering (E. Coli in Motion, Springer, New York, NY, 2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    J. Liu, R. M. Ford, and J. A. Smith, Idling Time of Motile Bacteria Contributes to Retardation and Disper- sion in Sand Porous Medium, Environmental Science & Technology45, 3945 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    J. W. Barton and R. M. Ford, Determination of effec- tive transport coefficients for bacterial migration in sand columns, Applied and Environmental Microbiology61, 3329 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    J. L. Sherwood, J. C. Sung, R. M. Ford, E. J. Fernan- dez, J. E. Maneval, and J. A. Smith, Analysis of bac- terial random motility in a porous medium using mag- netic resonance imaging and immunomagnetic labeling, Environmental Science & Technology37, 781 (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    D. Or, B. F. Smets, J. M. Wraith, A. Dechesne, and S. P. Friedman, Physical constraints affecting bacterial habitats and activity in unsaturated porous media—a review, Advances in Water Resources30, 1505 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    R. M. Ford and R. W. Harvey, Role of chemotaxis in the transport of bacteria through saturated porous media, Advances in Water Resources30, 1608 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    S. E. Spagnolie and P. T. Underhill, Swimming in Complex Fluids, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 381 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    D. Gao, Z. Wang, M. Jain, A. J. T. M. Mathijssen, and R. Tao, Selective Trapping of Bacteria in Porous Media by Cell Length, Integrative and Comparative Biology 66, icag018 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Bhattacharjee and S

    T. Bhattacharjee and S. S. Datta, Confinement and Ac- tivity Regulate Bacterial Motion in Porous Media, Soft Matter15, 9920 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    M. B. Akolpoglu, Y. Alapan, N. O. Dogan, S. F. Baltaci, O. Yasa, G. Aybar Tural, and M. Sitti, Magnetically steerable bacterial microrobots moving in 3D biological matrices for stimuli-responsive cargo delivery, Science Advances8, eabo6163 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Kurzthaler, S

    C. Kurzthaler, S. Mandal, T. Bhattacharjee, H. L¨ owen, S. S. Datta, and H. A. Stone, A geometric criterion for the optimal spreading of active polymers in porous media, Nature Communications12, 7088 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Pietrangeli, R

    T. Pietrangeli, R. Foffi, R. Stocker, C. Ybert, C. Cottin- Bizonne, and F. Detcheverry, Universal Law for the Dis- persal of Motile Microorganisms in Porous Media, Phys- ical Review Letters134, 188303 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    H. H. Mattingly, Coarse-Graining Bacterial Diffusion in Disordered Media to Surface States, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2407313122 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Dehkharghani, N

    A. Dehkharghani, N. Waisbord, and J. S. Guasto, Self- transport of swimming bacteria is impaired by porous microstructure, Communications Physics6, 18 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Dechesne, G

    A. Dechesne, G. Wang, G. G¨ ulez, D. Or, and B. F. Smets, Hydration-controlled bacterial motility and dispersal on surfaces, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 14369 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Saragosti, V

    J. Saragosti, V. Calvez, N. Bournaveas, B. Perthame, A. Buguin, and P. Silberzan, Directional persistence of chemotactic bacteria in a traveling concentration wave, 15 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108, 16235 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Bhattacharjee, D

    T. Bhattacharjee, D. B. Amchin, J. A. Ott, F. Kratz, and S. S. Datta, Chemotactic migration of bacteria in porous media, Biophysical Journal120, 3483 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Beier, V

    S. Beier, V. Pfeifer, A. Datta, R. Großmann, and C. Beta, Dual Chemotaxis Strategy of Bacteria in Porous Media: Run-time and Turn-Angle Bias, Bio- physical Journal p. S0006349526004108 (2026)

    2026

  55. [63]

    J. C. Conrad and R. Poling-Skutvik, Confined Flow: Consequences and Implications for Bacteria and Biofilms, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecu- lar Engineering9, 175 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Wioland, F

    H. Wioland, F. G. Woodhouse, J. Dunkel, J. O. Kessler, and R. E. Goldstein, Confinement stabilizes a bacterial suspension into a spiral vortex, Physical Review Letters 110, 268102 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    H. Xu, J. Dauparas, D. Das, E. Lauga, and Y. Wu, Self- organization of swimmers drives long-range fluid trans- port in bacterial colonies, Nature Communications10, 1792 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    R. A. Freeze and J. A. Cherry,Groundwater(Ground- water, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979)

    1979

  59. [67]

    Almoteri and E

    Y. Almoteri and E. Lushi, Microswimmer collective dy- namics in Brinkman flows, Physical Review Fluids10, 083102 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Hillel and A

    D. Hillel and A. W. Warrick,Environmental Soil Physics(Environmental Soil Physics, AP, Acad. Press, Amsterdam, 2009), nachdr. der ausg. 1998 ed., ISBN 978-0-12-348525-0

    2009

  61. [69]

    Roose, A

    T. Roose, A. C. Fowler, and P. R. Darrah, A mathemat- ical model of plant nutrient uptake, Journal of Mathe- matical Biology42, 347 (2001)

    2001

  62. [70]

    Drescher, J

    K. Drescher, J. Dunkel, L. H. Cisneros, S. Ganguly, and R. E. Goldstein, Fluid dynamics and noise in bacterial cell–cell and cell–surface scattering, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 10940 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Rusconi, J

    R. Rusconi, J. S. Guasto, and R. Stocker, Bacterial transport suppressed by fluid shear, Nature Physics10, 212 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    B. O. Torres Maldonado, A. Th´ ery, R. Tao, Q. Brosseau, A. J. Mathijssen, and P. E. Arratia, Enhancement of bacterial rheotaxis in non-Newtonian fluids, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2417614121 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    E. B. Roberson and M. K. Firestone, Relationship be- tween desiccation and exopolysaccharide production in a soil Pseudomonas sp., Applied and Environmental Mi- crobiology58, 1284 (1992)

    1992

  66. [74]

    O. Y. A. Costa, J. M. Raaijmakers, and E. E. Kuramae, Microbial extracellular polymeric substances: ecological function and impact on soil aggregation, Frontiers in Microbiology9, 1636 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    V. A. Martinez, J. Schwarz-Linek, M. Reufer, L. G. Wil- son, A. N. Morozov, and W. C. Poon, Flagellated bac- terial motility in polymer solutions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 17771 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    Kamdar, S

    S. Kamdar, S. Shin, P. Leishangthem, L. F. Francis, X. Xu, and X. Cheng, The colloidal nature of com- plex fluids enhances bacterial motility, Nature603, 819 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Di Terlizzi, L

    I. Di Terlizzi, L. Koehler, and J. D. Treado, Passive memory reshapes active persistence, arXiv:2605.29162 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Pavlovsky, J

    L. Pavlovsky, J. G. Younger, and M. J. Solomon, In Situ rheology of Staphylococcus Epidermidis Bacterial Biofilms, Soft Matter9, 122 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Nazari, K

    F. Nazari, K. Shoele, and H. Mohammadigoushki, Heli- cal Locomotion in Yield Stress Fluids, Physical Review Letters130, 114002 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Chattopadhyay, R

    S. Chattopadhyay, R. Moldovan, C. Yeung, and X. L. Wu, Swimming Efficiency of Bacterium Escherichia Coli, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 13712 (2006)

    2006

  73. [81]

    Dorken, G

    G. Dorken, G. P. Ferguson, C. E. French, and W. C. K. Poon, Aggregation by depletion attraction in cultures of bacteria producing exopolysaccharide, Journal of the Royal Society Interface9, 3490 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Schwarz-Linek, G

    J. Schwarz-Linek, G. Dorken, A. Winkler, L. G. Wilson, N. T. Pham, C. E. French, T. Schilling, and W. C. K. Poon, Polymer-induced phase separation in suspensions of bacteria, Europhysics Letters (EPL)89, 68003 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    P. R. Secor, L. A. Michaels, A. Ratjen, L. K. Jennings, and P. K. Singh, Entropically driven aggregation of bac- teria by host polymers promotes antibiotic tolerance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA115, 10780 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    W. A. Niu, S. L. Rivera, M. S. Siegrist, and M. M. Santore, Depletion forces drive reversible capture of live bacteria on non-adhesive surfaces, Soft Matter17, 8185 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    D. Or, S. Phutane, and A. Dechesne, Extracellular poly- meric substances affecting pore-scale hydrologic condi- tions for bacterial activity in unsaturated soils, Vadose Zone Journal6, 298 (2007)

    2007

  78. [86]

    Repula, E

    A. Repula, E. Abraham, V. Cherpak, and I. I. Sma- lyukh, Biotropic liquid crystal phase transformations in cellulose-producing bacterial communities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2200930119 (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Rapini and M

    A. Rapini and M. Papoular, Distorsion d’une lamelle n´ ematique sous champ magn´ etique conditions d’ancrage aux parois, Le Journal de Physique Colloques30, C4 (1969)

    1969

  80. [88]

    S. G. L. Corte, T. G. J. Chandler, S. E. Spagnolie, N. S. Wingreen, and S. S. Datta, Morphogenesis of Bacterial Colonies in Liquid Crystalline Environments, arXiv:2512.12406 (2025), 2512.12406

    2025

  81. [89]

    Z. You, D. J. G. Pearce, A. Sengupta, and L. Giomi, Geometry and Mechanics of Microdomains in Growing Bacterial Colonies, Physical Review X8, 031065 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Dell’Arciprete, M

    D. Dell’Arciprete, M. L. Blow, A. T. Brown, F. D. C. Farrell, J. S. Lintuvuori, A. F. McVey, D. Marenduzzo, and W. C. K. Poon, A Growing Bacterial Colony in Two Dimensions as an Active Nematic, Nature Communica- tions9, 4190 (2018)

    2018

  83. [91]

    Doostmohammadi, J

    A. Doostmohammadi, J. Ignes-Mullol, J. M. Yeomans, and F. Sagues, Active nematics, Nature Communica- tions9, 3246 (2018)

    2018

  84. [92]

    Copenhagen, R

    K. Copenhagen, R. Alert, N. S. Wingreen, and J. W. Shaevitz, Topological defects promote layer formation in Myxococcus xanthus colonies, Nature Physics17, 211 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    Beroz, J

    F. Beroz, J. Yan, Y. Meir, B. Sabass, H. A. Stone, B. L. Bassler, and N. S. Wingreen, Verticalization of bacterial biofilms, Nature Physics14, 954 (2018)

    2018

  86. [94]

    Z. You, D. J. Pearce, and L. Giomi, Confinement- induced self-organization in growing bacterial colonies, 16 Science Advances7, eabc8685 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    Zhang, J

    Q. Zhang, J. Li, J. Nijjer, H. Lu, M. Kothari, R. Alert, T. Cohen, and J. Yan, Morphogenesis and Cell Order- ing in Confined Bacterial Biofilms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2107107118 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    S. G. V. Charlton, M. A. White, S. Jana, L. E. Eland, P. G. Jayathilake, J. G. Burgess, J. Chen, A. Wipat, and T. P. Curtis, Regulating, Measuring, and Model- ing the Viscoelasticity of Bacterial Biofilms, Journal of Bacteriology201, e00101 (2019)

    2019

  89. [97]

    Ohmura, D

    T. Ohmura, D. J. Skinner, K. Neuhaus, G. P. T. Choi, J. Dunkel, and K. Drescher, In Vivo Microrheology Re- veals Local Elastic and Plastic Responses Inside 3D Bac- terial Biofilms, Advanced Materials36, 2314059 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    Thullner, J

    M. Thullner, J. Zeyer, and W. Kinzelbach, Influence of microbial growth on hydraulic properties of pore net- works, Transport in Porous Media49, 99 (2002)

    2002

  91. [99]

    P. D. P´ erez and S. J. Hagen, Heterogeneous Response to a Quorum-Sensing Signal in the Luminescence of In- dividual Vibrio Fischeri, PLOS ONE5, e15473 (2010)

    2010

  92. [100]

    Moreno-G´ amez, M

    S. Moreno-G´ amez, M. E. Hochberg, and G. S. van Doorn, Quorum sensing as a mechanism to harness the wisdom of the crowds, Nature Communications14, 3415 (2023)

    2023

  93. [101]

    H. C. Berg and E. M. Purcell, Physics of chemorecep- tion, Biophysical Journal20, 193 (1977)

    1977

  94. [102]

    J. Q. Boedicker, M. E. Vincent, and R. F. Ismagilov, Mi- crofluidic confinement of single cells of bacteria in small volumes initiates high-density behavior of quorum sens- ing and growth and reveals its variability, Angewandte Chemie International Edition48, 5908 (2009)

    2009

  95. [103]

    E. C. Carnes, D. M. Lopez, N. P. Donegan, A. Che- ung, H. Gresham, G. S. Timmins, and C. J. Brinker, Confinement-induced quorum sensing of individual Staphylococcus aureusbacteria, Nature Chemical Biol- ogy6, 41 (2010)

    2010

  96. [104]

    M. K. Kim, F. Ingremeau, A. Zhao, B. L. Bassler, and H. A. Stone, Local and Global Consequences of Flow on Bacterial Quorum Sensing, Nature Microbiology1, 15005 (2016)

    2016

  97. [105]

    P. Emge, J. Moeller, H. Jang, R. Rusconi, Y. Yawata, R. Stocker, and V. Vogel, Resilience of bacterial quorum sensing against fluid flow, Scientific Reports6, 33115 (2016)

    2016

  98. [106]

    R. Mok, J. Dunkel, and V. Kantsler, Geometric control of bacterial surface accumulation, Physical Review E 99, 052607 (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    J. W. Young, J. C. W. Locke, and M. B. Elowitz, Rate of Environmental Change Determines Stress Response Specificity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences110, 4140 (2013)

    2013

  100. [108]

    J. E. Segall, S. M. Block, and H. C. Berg, Temporal comparisons in bacterial chemotaxis., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences83, 8987 (1986)

    1986

  101. [109]

    X. Fu, S. Kato, J. Long, H. H. Mattingly, C. He, D. C. Vural, S. W. Zucker, and T. Emonet, Spatial self-organization resolves conflicts between individual- ity and collective migration, Nature Communications 9, 2177 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    Mart´ ınez-Calvo, T

    A. Mart´ ınez-Calvo, T. Bhattacharjee, R. K. Bay, H. N. Luu, A. M. Hancock, N. S. Wingreen, and S. S. Datta, Morphological Instability and Roughening of Growing 3D Bacterial Colonies, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2208019119 (2022)

    2022

  103. [111]

    Drescher, Y

    K. Drescher, Y. Shen, B. L. Bassler, and H. A. Stone, Biofilm streamers cause catastrophic disruption of flow with consequences for environmental and medical sys- tems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA110, 4345 (2013)

    2013

  104. [112]

    Adler, Chemotaxis in bacteria, Science153, 708 (1966)

    J. Adler, Chemotaxis in bacteria, Science153, 708 (1966)

    1966

  105. [113]

    Cremer, T

    J. Cremer, T. Honda, Y. Tang, J. Wong-Ng, M. Vergas- sola, and T. Hwa, Chemotaxis as a navigation strategy to boost range expansion, Nature575, 658 (2019)

    2019

  106. [114]

    A. V. Narla, J. Cremer, and T. Hwa, A traveling-wave solution for bacterial chemotaxis with growth, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences USA118, e2105138118 (2021)

    2021

  107. [115]

    J. M. Keegstra, F. Carrara, and R. Stocker, The eco- logical roles of bacterial chemotaxis, Nature Reviews Microbiology20, 491 (2022)

    2022

  108. [116]

    Y. V. Kalinin, L. Jiang, Y. Tu, and M. Wu, Logarithmic sensing in Escherichia coli bacterial chemotaxis, Bio- physical Journal96, 2439 (2009)

    2009

  109. [117]

    Al Harraq, G

    A. Al Harraq, G. Choi, S. S. Datta, and J. W. Shaevitz, Soil Texture Regulates Bacterial Motility and Chemo- tactic Recruitment to Plant Roots, PRX Life4, 013034 (2026)

    2026

  110. [118]

    O. A. Croze, G. P. Ferguson, M. E. Cates, and W. C. K. Poon, Migration of Chemotactic Bacteria in Soft Agar: Role of Gel Concentration, Biophysical Journal101, 525 (2011)

    2011

  111. [119]

    Bhattacharjee, D

    T. Bhattacharjee, D. B. Amchin, R. Alert, J. A. Ott, and S. S. Datta, Chemotactic smoothing of collective migration, eLife11, e71226 (2022)

    2022

  112. [120]

    Alert, A

    R. Alert, A. Mart´ ınez-Calvo, and S. S. Datta, Cellu- lar sensing governs the stability of chemotactic fronts, Physical Review Letters128, 148101 (2022)

    2022

  113. [121]

    K. Son, F. Menolascina, and R. Stocker, Speed- dependent chemotactic precision in marine bacteria, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113, 8624 (2016)

    2016

  114. [122]

    Alirezaeizanjani, R

    Z. Alirezaeizanjani, R. Großmann, V. Pfeifer, M. Hintsche, and C. Beta, Chemotaxis Strategies of Bacteria with Multiple Run Modes, Science Ad- vances6, eaaz6153 (2020)

    2020

  115. [123]

    F. D. C. Farrell, O. Hallatschek, D. Marenduzzo, and B. Waclaw, Mechanically Driven Growth of Quasi-Two- Dimensional Microbial Colonies, Physical Review Let- ters111, 168101 (2013)

    2013

  116. [124]

    D. B. Amchin, J. A. Ott, T. Bhattacharjee, and S. S. Datta, Influence of confinement on the spreading of bac- terial populations, PLOS Computational Biology18, e1010063 (2022)

    2022

  117. [125]

    De Weert, H

    S. De Weert, H. Vermeiren, I. H. M. Mulders, I. Kuiper, N. Hendrickx, G. V. Bloemberg, J. Vanderleyden, R. De Mot, and B. J. J. Lugtenberg, Flagella-Driven Chemotaxis Towards Exudate Components Is an Im- portant Trait for Tomato Root Colonization byPseu- domonas Fluorescens, M...

    2002

  118. [126]

    Rudrappa, K

    T. Rudrappa, K. J. Czymmek, P. W. Par´ e, and H. P. Bais, Root-Secreted Malic Acid Recruits Beneficial Soil Bacteria, Plant Physiology148, 1547 (2008)

    2008

  119. [127]

    Zhalnina, K

    K. Zhalnina, K. B. Louie, Z. Hao, N. Mansoori, U. N. Da Rocha, S. Shi, H. Cho, U. Karaoz, D. Loqu´ e, B. P. Bowen, et al., Dynamic Root Exudate Chemistry and Microbial Substrate Preferences Drive Patterns in Rhi- 17 zosphere Microbial Community Assembly, Nature Mi- crobiology3...

    2018

  120. [128]

    D. L. Jones, C. Nguyen, and R. D. Finlay, Carbon Flow in the Rhizosphere: Carbon Trading at the Soil–Root Interface, Plant and Soil321, 5 (2009)

    2009

  121. [129]

    Mesibov, G

    R. Mesibov, G. W. Ordal, and J. Adler, The range of at- tractant concentrations for bacterial chemotaxis and the threshold and size of response over this range: Weber law and related phenomena, Journal of General Physi- ology62, 203 (1973)

    1973

  122. [130]

    Clausznitzer, G

    D. Clausznitzer, G. Micali, S. Neumann, V. Sourjik, and R. G. Endres, Predicting chemical environments of bac- teria from receptor signaling, PLoS Computational Bi- ology10, e1003870 (2014)

    2014

  123. [131]

    Raynaud and N

    X. Raynaud and N. Nunan, Spatial ecology of bacteria at the microscale in soil, PLOS ONE9, e87217 (2014)

    2014

  124. [132]

    R. E. Alcalde, H. Jeckel, O. Zhang, R. L. Avila, N. F. Dalleska, D. V. Mavrodi, C. Yang, and D. K. Newman, Phosphorus Stress and Spatial Confinement Lower the Quorum-Sensing Activation Threshold for Phenazine Production in Pseudomonas Synxantha, Current Biol- ogy36, 3233 (2026)

    2026

  125. [133]

    J. A. Moore-Ott, S. Chiu, D. B. Amchin, T. Bhattachar- jee, and S. S. Datta, A biophysical threshold for biofilm formation, eLife11, e76380 (2022)

    2022

  126. [134]

    L. C. Vinolas, J. R. Healey, and D. L. Jones, Kinetics of soil microbial uptake of free amino acids, Biology and Fertility of Soils33, 67 (2001)

    2001

  127. [135]

    Blagodatskaya and Y

    E. Blagodatskaya and Y. Kuzyakov, Active microor- ganisms in soil: Critical review of estimation criteria and approaches, Soil Biology and Biochemistry67, 192 (2013)

    2013

  128. [136]

    B. V. Hokmabad, A. Mart´ ınez-Calvo, S. Gonzalez La Corte, and S. S. Datta, Spatial self-organization of confined bacterial suspensions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA122, e2503983122 (2025)

    2025

  129. [137]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Si, Y. Dong, K. Chen, Q. Ouyang, C. Luo, and Y. Tu, Escape band in Escherichia coli chemotaxis in opposing attractant and nutrient gradients, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences USA116, 2253 (2019)

    2019

  130. [138]

    Stocker, J

    R. Stocker, J. R. Seymour, A. Samadani, D. E. Hunt, and M. F. Polz, Rapid chemotactic response enables marine bacteria to exploit ephemeral microscale nutri- ent patches, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA105, 4209 (2008)

    2008

  131. [139]

    Smriga, V

    S. Smriga, V. I. Fern´ andez, J. G. Mitchell, and R. Stocker, Chemotaxis toward phytoplankton drives organic matter partitioning among marine bacteria, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113, 1576 (2016)

    2016

  132. [140]

    De Anna, A

    P. De Anna, A. A. Pahlavan, Y. Yawata, R. Stocker, and R. Juanes, Chemotaxis under Flow Disorder Shapes Microbial Dispersion in Porous Media, Nature Physics 17, 68 (2021)

    2021

  133. [141]

    P. S. Stewart, Diffusion in biofilms, Journal of Bacteri- ology185, 1485 (2003)

    2003

  134. [142]

    A. K. Wessel, T. A. Arshad, M. Fitzpatrick, J. L. Con- nell, R. T. Bonnecaze, J. B. Shear, and M. Whiteley, Oxygen limitation within a bacterial aggregate, mBio 5, e00992 (2014)

    2014

  135. [143]

    Bravo, S

    P. Bravo, S. Lung Ng, K. A. MacGillivray, B. K. Ham- mer, and P. J. Yunker, Vertical Growth Dynamics of Biofilms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences120, e2214211120 (2023)

    2023

  136. [144]

    A. J. Sexstone, N. P. Revsbech, T. B. Parkin, and J. M. Tiedje, Direct measurement of oxygen profiles and den- itrification rates in soil aggregates, Soil Science Society of America Journal49, 645 (1985)

    1985

  137. [145]

    A. M. Hancock, A. S. Dill-Macky, J. A. Moore, C. Day, M. S. Donia, and S. S. Datta, A Nutrient Bottle- neck Controls Antibiotic Efficacy in Structured Bac- terial Populations, Nature Communications17, 3337 (2026)

    2026

  138. [146]

    G. R. Squyres and D. K. Newman, Single-cell lysis pat- terns morphogenesis of eDNA in the matrix of Pseu- domonas aeruginosa biofilms, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences122, e2514210122 (2025)

    2025

  139. [147]

    Ben-Jacob, O

    E. Ben-Jacob, O. Schochet, A. Tenenbaum, I. Cohen, A. Czir´ ok, and T. Vicsek, Generic modelling of cooper- ative growth patterns in bacterial colonies, Nature368, 46 (1994)

    1994

  140. [148]

    Wakita, K

    J.-i. Wakita, K. Komatsu, A. Nakahara, T. Matsuyama, and M. Matsushita, Experimental Investigation on the Validity of Population Dynamics Approach to Bacterial Colony Formation, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan63, 1205 (1994)

    1994

  141. [149]

    Hallatschek, P

    O. Hallatschek, P. Hersen, S. Ramanathan, and D. R. Nelson, Genetic drift at expanding frontiers promotes gene segregation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA104, 19926 (2007)

    2007

  142. [150]

    Bravo and P

    P. Bravo and P. J. Yunker, Fluctuations and freezing of biofilm-air interfaces, bioRxiv (2024)

    2024

  143. [151]

    A. Cont, T. Rossy, Z. Al-Mayyah, and A. Persat, Biofilms Deform Soft Surfaces and Disrupt Epithelia, eLife9, e56533 (2020)

    2020

  144. [152]

    Delarue, J

    M. Delarue, J. Hartung, C. Schreck, P. Gniewek, L. Hu, S. Herminghaus, and O. Hallatschek, Self-driven jam- ming in growing microbial populations, Nature Physics 12, 762 (2016)

    2016

  145. [153]

    Monnappa, Z

    S. Monnappa, Z. Al-Mayyah, M. S. Sakar, and A. Per- sat, Growth in Confinement Promotes Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Tolerance to Antibiotics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences123, e2605176123 (2026)

    2026

  146. [154]

    D. L. Kurz, E. Secchi, F. J. Carrillo, I. C. Bourg, R. Stocker, and J. Jimenez-Martinez, Competition be- tween growth and shear stress drives intermittency in preferential flow paths in porous medium biofilms, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA119, e21222021...

    2022

  147. [155]

    S. H. Lee, E. Secchi, and P. K. Kang, Rapid for- mation of bioaggregates and morphology transition to biofilm streamers induced by pore-throat flows, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA120, e2204466120 (2023)

    2023

  148. [156]

    Scheidweiler, A

    D. Scheidweiler, A. D. Bordoloi, W. Jiao, V. Sentchilo, M. Bollani, A. Chhun, P. Engel, and P. De Anna, Spatial Structure, Chemotaxis and Quorum Sensing Shape Bac- terial Biomass Accumulation in Complex Porous Media, Nature Communications15, 191 (2024)

    2024

  149. [157]

    D. L. Kurz, E. Secchi, R. Stocker, and J. Jimenez- Martinez, Morphogenesis of biofilms in porous media and control on hydrodynamics, Environmental Science & Technology57, 5666 (2023)

    2023

  150. [158]

    I. C. Engelhardt, D. Patko, Y. Liu, M. Mimault, G. de las Heras Martinez, T. S. George, M. MacDonald, M. Ptashnyk, T. Sukhodub, N. R. Stanley-Wall, et al., 18 Novel Form of Collective Movement by Soil Bacteria, The ISME Journal16, 2337 (2022)

    2022

  151. [159]

    B. V. Hokmabad, T. Appleford, H. N. Luu, M. Ra- maswamy, M. Jalaal, and S. S. Datta, Biogenic Bubbles Enable Microbial Escape from Physical Confinement, arXiv:2604.07768 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  152. [160]

    P. G. Dennis, A. J. Miller, and P. R. Hirsch, Are root exudates more important than other sources of rhi- zodeposits in structuring rhizosphere bacterial commu- nities?, FEMS Microbiology Ecology72, 313 (2010)

    2010

  153. [161]

    Tixier, M

    A. Tixier, M. Forest, M. Prudent, V. Durey, M. Zwie- niecki, and R. L. Barnard, Root exudation of carbon and nitrogen compounds varies over the day–night cy- cle in pea: The role of diurnal changes in internal pools, Plant, Cell & Environment46, 962 (2023)

    2023

  154. [162]

    J. L. L´ opez, A. Fourie, S. W. M. Poppeliers, N. Pap- pas, J. J. S´ anchez-Gil, R. De Jonge, and B. E. Dutilh, Growth Rate Is a Dominant Factor Predicting the Rhi- zosphere Effect, The ISME Journal17, 1396 (2023)

    2023

  155. [163]

    H. P. Bais, T. L. Weir, L. G. Perry, S. Gilroy, and J. M. Vivanco, The role of root exudates in rhizosphere inter- actions with plants and other organisms, Annual Review of Plant Biology57, 233 (2006)

    2006

  156. [164]

    Philippot, J

    L. Philippot, J. M. Raaijmakers, P. Lemanceau, and W. H. van der Putten, Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere, Nature Reviews Microbiology11, 789 (2013)

    2013

  157. [165]

    E. I. Newman and A. Watson, Microbial abundance in the rhizosphere: A computer model, Plant and Soil48, 17 (1977)

    1977

  158. [166]

    P. R. Darrah, Models of the rhizosphere. I. Microbial population dynamics around a root releasing soluble and insoluble carbon, Plant and Soil133, 187 (1991)

    1991

  159. [167]

    Raynaud, Soil Properties Are Key Determinants for the Development of Exudate Gradients in a Rhizosphere Simulation Model, Soil Biology and Biochemistry42, 210 (2010)

    X. Raynaud, Soil Properties Are Key Determinants for the Development of Exudate Gradients in a Rhizosphere Simulation Model, Soil Biology and Biochemistry42, 210 (2010)

    2010

  160. [168]

    Danhorn and C

    T. Danhorn and C. Fuqua, Biofilm formation by plant- associated bacteria, Annual Review of Microbiology61, 401 (2007)

    2007

  161. [169]

    Kuzyakov and B

    Y. Kuzyakov and B. S. Razavi, Rhizosphere size and shape: Temporal dynamics and spatial stationarity, Soil Biology and Biochemistry135, 343 (2019)

    2019

  162. [170]

    J. T. DeJong, B. M. Mortensen, B. C. Martinez, and D. C. Nelson, Bio-mediated soil improvement, Ecologi- cal Engineering36, 197 (2010)

    2010

  163. [171]

    J. T. DeJong, K. Soga, E. Kavazanjian, S. Burns, L. A. van Paassen, et al., Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, opportunities and challenges, G´ eotechnique63, 287 (2013)

    2013

  164. [172]

    Al Qabany, K

    A. Al Qabany, K. Soga, and C. Santamarina, Factors affecting efficiency of microbially induced calcite precip- itation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering138, 992 (2012)

    2012

  165. [173]

    H. Meng, Y. Gao, J. He, et al., Microbially induced car- bonate precipitation for wind erosion control of desert soil: field-scale tests, Geoderma383, 114723 (2021)

    2021

  166. [174]

    J. T. DeJong, M. B. Fritzges, and K. N¨ usslein, Micro- bially induced cementation to control sand response to undrained shear, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi- ronmental Engineering132, 1381 (2006)

    2006

  167. [175]

    J. M. Tisdall and J. M. Oades, Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils, Journal of Soil Science 33, 141 (1982)

    1982

  168. [176]

    B. P. Boudreau, The physics of bubbles in surficial, soft, cohesive sediments, Marine and Petroleum Geology38, 1 (2012)

    2012

  169. [177]

    Holtzman and R

    R. Holtzman and R. Juanes, Crossover from fingering to fracturing in deformable disordered media, Physical Review E82, 046305 (2010)

    2010

  170. [178]

    Holtzman, M

    R. Holtzman, M. L. Szulczewski, and R. Juanes, Capil- lary fracturing in granular media, Physical Review Let- ters108, 264504 (2012)

    2012

  171. [179]

    Rebata-Landa and J

    V. Rebata-Landa and J. C. Santamarina, Mechanical effects of biogenic nitrogen gas bubbles in soils, Jour- nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 138, 128 (2012)

    2012

  172. [180]

    B. P. Scandella, C. Varadharajan, H. F. Hemond, C. Ruppel, and R. Juanes, A conduit dilation model of methane venting from lake sediments, Geophysical Research Letters38, L06408 (2011)

    2011

  173. [181]

    Rahmati, D

    M. Rahmati, D. Or, W. Amelung, S. L. Bauke, R. Bol, H.-J. Hendricks Franssen, C. Montzka, J. Vanderborght, and H. Vereecken, Soil is a living archive of the Earth system, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment4, 421 (2023)

    2023

  174. [182]

    Schulz-Bohm, S

    K. Schulz-Bohm, S. Gerards, M. Hundscheid, J. Me- lenhorst, W. de Boer, and P. Garbeva, Calling from Distance: Attraction of Soil Bacteria by Plant Root Volatiles, The ISME Journal12, 1252 (2018)

    2018

  175. [183]

    V. G. Muir, A. Mart´ ınez-Calvo, N. S. Wingreen, and S. S. Datta,Death & Chemotaxis: Bacterial Chemo- taxis Enables Collective Escape from Phage Predation, bioRxiv (2026)

    2026

  176. [184]

    Mart´ ınez-Calvo, N

    A. Mart´ ınez-Calvo, N. S. Wingreen, and S. S. Datta, Pattern Formation by Bacteria-Phage Interactions, bioRxiv (2023)

    2023

  177. [185]

    Dal Co, M

    A. Dal Co, M. Ackermann, and S. Van Vliet, Spatial Self-Organization of Metabolism in Microbial Systems: A Matter of Enzymes and Chemicals, Cell Systems14, 98 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.