Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Soil biodiversity, biological indicators and soil ecosystem services—an overview of European approaches

Open access
Pulleman, Mirjam, Creamer, Rachel, Hamer, Ute, Helder, Johannes, Pelosi, Céline, Pérès, Guénola, Rutgers, Michiel·2012·Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Mace, 2010, Biodiversity targets after 2010, Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 2, 3, 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Kibblewhite, 2008, Soil health in agricultural systems, Philos Trans R Soc B, 363, 685, 10.1098/rstb.2007.2178 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Dominati, 2010, A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils, Ecol Econ, 69, 1858, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Creamer, 2010, Implications of the proposed Soil Framework Directive on agricultural systems in Atlantic Europe – a review, Soil Use Manage, 26, 198, 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00288.x · DOI
  5. Gardi, 2009, Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe: ongoing activities and challenges, Eur J Soil Sci, 60, 807, 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01177.x · DOI
  6. Noss, 1990, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach, Conserv Biol, 4, 355, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. Bispo, 2009, Indicators for monitoring soil biodiversity, Integr Environ Assess Manage, 5, 717, 10.1897/IEAM_2009-064.1 · doi:10.1897/ieam_2009-064.1
  8. Mulder, 2011, A belowground perspective on dutch agroecosystems: how soil organisms interact to support ecosystem services, Adv Ecol Res, 44, 277, 10.1016/B978-0-12-374794-5.00005-5 · DOI
  9. Swift, 1979, vol. 5
  10. De Deyn, 2009, Vegetation composition promotes carbon and nitrogen storage in model grassland communities of contrasting soil fertility, J Ecol, 97, 864, 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01536.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. Nielsen, 2011, Soil biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review and synthesis of studies examining diversity–function relationships, Eur J Soil Sci, 62, 105, 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01314.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. Wall, 2010, Biodiversity in the dark, Nature, 3, 297
  13. Edwards, 2011, Simulated atmospheric N deposition alters fungal community composition and suppresses ligninolytic gene expression in a Northern Hardwood Forest, PLoS ONE, 6, 20421, 10.1371/journal.pone.0020421 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Van Der Heijden, 2009, Socialism in soil? The importance of mycorrhizal fungal networks for facilitation in natural ecosystems, J Ecol, 97, 1139, 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01570.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Didden, 1994, Soil meso- and macrofauna in two agricultural systems: factors affecting population dynamics and evaluation of their role in carbon and nitrogen dynamics, Agric Ecosyst Environ, 51, 171, 10.1016/0167-8809(94)90042-6 · DOI
  16. Hendrix, 1986, Detritus food webs in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems, Bioscience, 36, 374, 10.2307/1310259 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Jongmans, 2003, Soil structure and characteristics of organic matter in two orchards differing in earthworm activity, Appl Soil Ecol, 24, 219, 10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00072-6 · DOI
  18. Wardle, 1995, Impacts of disturbance on detritus food webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices, Adv Ecol Res, 26, 105, 10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60065-3 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Doran, 2000, Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality, Appl Soil Ecol, 15, 3, 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00067-6 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Rutgers, 1999, Risk assessment, microbial communities, and pollution-induced community tolerance, Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 5, 661, 10.1080/10807039.1999.9657730 · DOI
  21. Sousa, 2005, Changes in Collembola richness and diversity along a gradient of land-use intensity: a pan European study, Pedobiologia, 50, 147, 10.1016/j.pedobi.2005.10.005 · DOI
  22. Pérès, 2011, Earthworm indicators as tools for soil monitoring, characterization and risk assessment. An example from the national Bioindicator programme (France), Pedobiologia, 54, S77, 10.1016/j.pedobi.2011.09.015 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Pérès, 2010, Relationships between earthworm communities and burrow numbers under different land use systems, Pedobiologia, 54, 37, 10.1016/j.pedobi.2010.08.006 · DOI
  24. Pelosi, 2009, Earthworm community in conventional, organic and direct seeding with living mulch cropping systems, Agron Sustain Dev, 29, 287, 10.1051/agro/2008069 · DOI
  25. Griffiths, 2006, Molecular sequencing and morphological analysis of a nematode community, Appl Soil Ecol, 32, 325, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.07.006 · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.07.006
  26. Velasquez, 2007, This ped is my ped: visual separation and near infrared spectra allow determination of the origins of soil macroaggregates, Pedobiologia, 51, 75, 10.1016/j.pedobi.2007.01.002 · DOI
  27. Ritz, 2009, Selecting biological indicators for monitoring soils: a framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to assist policy development, Ecol Indicators, 9, 1212, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.009 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Castellanos Navarrete, 2012, Earthworms, soil carbon and aggregation: soil quality changes in conservation agriculture under semi-arid conditions, Soil Tillage Res, 123, 61, 10.1016/j.still.2012.03.011 · DOI
  29. Griffiths, 2012, Insights into the resistance and resilience of the soil microbial community, FEMS Microbiol Rev, 1
  30. Hall, 2011, Linking microbial and ecosystem ecology using ecological stoichiometry: a synthesis of conceptual and empirical approaches, Ecosystems, 14, 261, 10.1007/s10021-010-9408-4 · DOI
  31. Maron, 2007, Metaproteomics: a new approach for studying functional microbial ecology, Microb Ecol, 53, 486, 10.1007/s00248-006-9196-8 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Cluzeau, 2012, Integration of biodiversity in soil quality monitoring: baselines for microbial and soil fauna parameters for different land-use types, Eur J Soil Biol, 49, 63, 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2011.11.003 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Lemanceau, 2011, EcoFINDERS: characterizing biodiversity and soil functioning in Europe. 23 partners from 10 European countries and China, Biofuture, 326, 56
  34. Postma-Blaauw, 2012, Agricultural intensification and de-intensification differentially affect taxonomic diversity of predatory mites, earthworms, enchytraeids, nematodes and bacteria, Appl Soil Ecol, 57, 39, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.02.011 · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2012.02.011
  35. Ruiz, 2011, IBQS: a synthetic index of soil quality based on soil macro-invertebrate communities, Soil Biol Biochem, 43, 2032
  36. Groot, 2007, Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality—a methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives, Agric Ecosyst Environ, 120, 58, 10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.037 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Van Wijnen, 2012, How to calculate the spatial distribution of ecosystem services across the Netherlands, Sci Total Environ, 415, 49, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.058 · DOI
  38. de Bello, 2010, Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits, Biodivers Conserv, 19, 2873, 10.1007/s10531-010-9850-9 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Holtkamp, 2011, Modelling C and N mineralisation in soil food webs during secondary succession on ex-arable land, Soil Biol Biochem, 43, 251, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.10.004 · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.10.004
  40. Capowiez, 2009, The effect of tillage type and cropping system on earthworm communities, macroporosity and water infiltration, Soil Tillage Res, 105, 209, 10.1016/j.still.2009.09.002 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Pérès, 2008, Earthworms used as indicators of agricultural managements, Fresenius Environ Bull, 17, 1181
  42. Giannopoulos, 2010, Interactions between residue placement and earthworm ecological strategy affect aggregate turnover and N2O dynamics in agricultural soil, Soil Biol Biochem, 42, 618, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.12.015 · DOI
  43. Bongers, 1990, The maturity index – an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition, Oecologia, 83, 14, 10.1007/BF00324627 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Van Megen, 2009, A phylogenetic tree of nematodes based on about 1200 full-length small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences, Nematology, 11, 927, 10.1163/156854109X456862 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hamer, 2008, Soil organic matter and microbial community structure in set-aside and intensively managed arable soils in NE-Saxony, Germany, Appl Soil Ecol, 40, 465, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.07.001 · DOI
  46. Rousk, 2011, Fungal and bacterial growth responses to N fertilization and pH in the 150-year ‘Park Grass’ UK grassland experiment, FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 76, 89, 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.01032.x · DOI · Paper page
  47. Allison, 2008, Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 105, 11512, 10.1073/pnas.0801925105 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Potthast, 2011, Land-use change in a tropical mountain rainforest region of Southern Ecuador affects soil microorganisms and nutrient cycling, Biogeochemistry

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Pulleman, M., Creamer, R., Hamer, U., Helder, J., Pelosi, C., Pérès, G., & Rutgers, M.
Venue
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
529-538
ISSN
1877-3435 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009
OpenAlex
W2106660412
Cited by
322
References
4
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Soil biodiversity, biological indicators and soil ecosystem services—an overview of European approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009
The paper
Pulleman, M., Creamer, R., Hamer, U., Helder, J., Pelosi, C., Pérès, G., & Rutgers, M. (2012). Soil biodiversity, biological indicators and soil ecosystem services—an overview of European approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.