Cited by 617Soil Science and Environmental ManagementSoil Management and Crop YieldPlant and soil sciences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Soil quality: why and how?

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0016-7061(03)00039-9

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The differences between land quality and soil quality, and between soil quality and soil health, can be summarized as a transition in focus from land quality to soil quality and soil health going from inherent to dynamic soil properties.

    “The di ff erences between land quality and soil quality observed by Karlen et al. (2003) and between soil quality and soil health observed by Pankhurst et al. (1997) and Moebius-Clune et al. (2016) can be summarized in a transition in focus from land quality to soil quality and soil health going from inherent to dynamic soil properties.”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Karlen et al. (2003)

  • Land quality and land evaluation primarily address inherent soil properties that do not change easily and are often assessed for the entire profile, whereas soil quality is more focused on dynamic soil properties that can be strongly influenced by management and are mainly monitored in the surface horizon (0-25 cm).

    “Whereas land quality and land evaluation primarily address the inherent soil properties that do not change easily and are often assessed for the entire pro fi le, soil quality is more focused on the dynamic soil properties that can be strongly in fl uenced by management and are mainly monitored in the surface horizon (0 -25 cm) of the soil (Karlen et al., 2003).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Karlen et al., 2003

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Andrews, S.S., 1998. Sustainable agriculture alternatives: ecological and managerial implications of poultry litter management alternatives applied to agronomic soils. PhD Dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
  2. Gregorich, E.G., 1996. Soil quality: a Canadian perspective. Proc. Soil Qual. Indic. Workshop, Feb 8–9, 1996. Ministry of Agric. and Fisheries, and Lincoln Soil Quality Res. Cntr. Lincoln Univ., Christchurch, NZ.
  3. Shepherd, 2000, Visual soil assessment, vol. 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Karlen, D. L., Ditzler, C. A., & Andrews, S. S.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Service (US)
Corresponding author
Karlen, Douglas L.
Venue
Geoderma
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
114
Issue
3-4
Pages
145-156
ISSN
0016-7061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104562823
Cited by
617
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 24
FWCI
10.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Geoderma (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Science and Environmental Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant and soil sciences
Keywords
soil quality, soil quality assessment, sustainable land management, visual soil assessment, soil ecosystem services, soil functions, soil resources, soil management

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