Cited by 74Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis

Assessing the effects of plant protection products on organic matter breakdown in arable fields—litter decomposition test systems

Knacker, Thomas, Förster, Bernhard, Römbke, Jörg, Frampton, Geoff K·2003·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Abstract

There is a need for plant protection products (PPPs) to be assessed for their effects on the breakdown of organic matter (OM), which is an important functional process in terrestrial ecosystems. Little information is available on to how to assess effects of PPPs on this complex system and formal guidelines for a standardised test method are lacking. We critically reviewed the literature to determine appropriate methods to investigate OM breakdown for the risk assessment of PPPs. Five methods appeared to be potentially suitable: namely the use of mini-containers or litter-bags to enclose OM, cotton-strip and bait-lamina assays which provide an artificial OM substrate, and stable isotopes to track the chemical decomposition of OM. These methods were compared on the basis of 10 suitability criteria, which included ecological relevance, ease of use and relevance to risk assessors. Each test method has limitations but the use of litter-bags, which is the most frequently used method, has distinct advantages over the other approaches. Accordingly, literature describing OM breakdown in litter-bags when applying PPPs are reviewed, gaps in the methodology are highlighted and recommendations for the development of a standardised and validated test method are proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00219-0

Cites

148 of 148 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knacker, T., Förster, B., Römbke, J., & Frampton, G. K.
Affiliations
  • ECT Oekotoxikologie (Germany) (DE)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Knacker, Thomas
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-10
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
1269-1287
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018640998
Cited by
74
References
148
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Environmental Chemistry and Analysis
Keywords
plant protection products, organic matter decomposition, litter decomposition, stable isotope tracers, pesticide risk assessment, arable fields, soil organic matter

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