Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 185 references

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.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 09:37 UTC pith:45S5Y57J

load-bearing objection 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. the 2 major comments →

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

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

Pablo Bravo , Tanumoy Dhar , Eloise Masquelier , Danielle Sclafani , Sujit S. Datta This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softphysics.geo-phq-bio.PE
keywords bacterial motilitysoil physicsporous mediachemotaxisbiofilmsquorum sensingdimensionless parametersrhizosphere
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

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.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are 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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, 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

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.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 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.
axioms (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.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 32962 in / 3228 out tokens · 39269 ms · 2026-07-14T09:37:44.318064+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
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 Danielle Sclafani, Eloise Masquelier, Pablo Bravo, Sujit S. Datta, Tanumoy Dhar.

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

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

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

  9. [9]

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

    2004

  10. [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 Environmental Microbiology85, e00324 (2019)

    2019

  11. [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

  12. [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

  13. [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

  14. [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 hotspots, Vadose Zone Journal18, 180211 (2019)

    2019

  15. [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

  16. [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

  17. [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

  18. [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

  19. [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

  20. [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

  21. [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

  22. [22]

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

    1971

  23. [23]

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

    1937

  24. [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

  25. [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

  26. [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

  27. [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

  28. [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

  29. [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

  30. [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

  31. [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

  32. [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- teractions, Journal of Visualized Experiments p. e57170 (2018)

    2018

  33. [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

  34. [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

  35. [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

  36. [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

  37. [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

  38. [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

  39. [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

  40. [40]

    Bhattacharjee and S

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

    2075

  41. [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

  42. [42]

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

    2015

  43. [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

  44. [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

  45. [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

  46. [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

  47. [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

  48. [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

  49. [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

  50. [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

  51. [51]

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

    2023

  52. [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

  53. [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

  54. [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

  55. [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

  56. [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

  57. [57]

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

    2025

  58. [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

  59. [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

  60. [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

  61. [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

  62. [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

  63. [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

  64. [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

  65. [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

  66. [66]

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

    1979

  67. [67]

    Almoteri and E

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

    2025

  68. [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

  69. [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

  70. [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

  71. [71]

    Rusconi, J

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

    2014

  72. [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

  73. [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

  74. [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

  75. [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

  76. [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

  77. [77]

    Di Terlizzi, L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [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

  79. [79]

    Nazari, K

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

    2023

  80. [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

Showing first 80 references.