Cited by 77Soil Management and Crop YieldSoil Science and Environmental ManagementSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

Soil quality monitoring in New Zealand: development of an interpretative framework

Lilburne, Linda, Sparling, Graham, Schipper, Louis·2004·Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

Abstract

Schemes to monitor soil quality must be associated with quality criteria that allow for an objective assessment of what the measured values signify in relation to soil quality. The derivation of an interpretative framework for a broad-scale New Zealand monitoring scheme is described. The basis for the framework is a set of interpreted response curves that were developed by soil quality experts in a workshop process. The curves combine both production and environmental goals, and are specific to particular combinations of land use and soil type. Appropriate target ranges for each soil indicator are derived from these curves. Techniques for aggregating and presenting the results of a comparison of sampled data with the target ranges are discussed. There are advantages in assessing quality by both individual soil property, and by grouping properties into one or more indices. This interpretative framework (target ranges and aggregating techniques) can be applied to the assessment of a single sample, or to summarize the overall quality in a region or country. We anticipate that the target ranges will become better defined as more data become available; at present they are better suited for assessing soil quality at a broad regional scale than for specific on-farm assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.020

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regional target ranges for soil quality indicators are typically narrower than national ones.

    “with regional target ranges typically being narrower than national ones (Lilburne et al., 2004; Wienhold et al., 2009).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Lilburne et al., 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lilburne, L., Sparling, G., & Schipper, L.
Affiliations
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ)
Corresponding author
Lilburne, Linda
Venue
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
535-544
ISSN
0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144532483
Cited by
77
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Science and Environmental Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
soil quality monitoring, interpretive frameworks, target range, response curves, soil quality indicators, soil quality index, land use, soil type, New Zealand

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review