Cited by 196Soil Management and Crop YieldSoil Science and Environmental ManagementSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A functional evaluation of three indicator sets for assessing soil quality

Open access
Lima, A.C.R., Brussaard, L., Totola, M.R., Hoogmoed, W.B., de Goede, R.G.M.·2013·Applied Soil Ecology

Abstract

Efforts to define and quantify soil quality are not new, but establishing consensus about a set of standardized indicators remains difficult. Also, the view of land managers is usually not taken into account when evaluating various sets of indicators. Our objective was to compare, in functional terms, soil quality assessments based on 29 indicators, a subset with 8 of those indicators, and 4 indicators selected independently by farmers, based on their perceptions of soil quality. The assessments were made for three different rice management systems in Camaquã, Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil, on soils of four soil textural classes based on clay content (<200, 200–400, 400–600, or >600gkg−1). The effects of land management practices on soil functions (water infiltration, storage and supply; nutrient storage, supply and cycling; and sustained biological activity) were evaluated. Soil quality was best assessed using the entire set of 29 indicators, but use of smaller indicator sets showed the same trends among management systems, textural classes, and soil functions, thus providing meaningful information on soil quality for land managers.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.12.009

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lima, A. C. R., Brussaard, L., Totola, M. R., Hoogmoed, W. B., & de Goede, R. G. M.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Lima, A.C.R.
Venue
Applied Soil Ecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
64
Pages
194-200
ISSN
0929-1393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986489147
Cited by
196
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
13.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Soil Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Wageningen University and Research
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
soil quality indicators, indicator sets, soil functions, water infiltration, soil water storage, nutrient cycling, soil biological activity, soil texture, clay content, farmer perceptions, land management practices, Camaquã

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