The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Humic Substances in Soils: Are They Really Chemically Distinct?
Abstract
Humic substances (HS) are an operationally defined fraction of soil organic matter, and they represent the largest pool of recalcitrant organic carbon in the terrestrial environment. It has traditionally been thought that extractable HS consist of novel categories of cross-linked macromolecular structures. In this study, advanced nuclear magnetic resonance approaches were used to study the major components (proteins, carbohydrates, aliphatic biopolymers, and lignin) that are known to be present in HS, and to identify their fingerprints in humic mixtures. Theoretically, once all known components have been identified, the remaining signals should be from materials with novel structures, themselves forming a distinct chemical category of humic materials. Surprisingly, nearly all of the NMR signals in traditional HS fractions could be assigned to intact and degrading biopolymers. We therefore suggest that the vast majority of operationally defined humic material in soils is a very complex mixture of microbial and plant biopolymers and their degradation products but not a distinct chemical category. It is important to note this work in no way rules out the existence of a distinct category of humic macromolecules, either at low abundance in the soluble fraction from young soils, in diagenetically evolved samples (for example lignites, etc.), or in the nonextractable humin fraction.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lal, R., Griffin, M., Apt, J., Lave, L., & Morgan, M. G. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093079 · Cited by 375
Cited by
Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property
Schmidt, M. W. I., Torn, M. S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I. A., Kleber, M., Kögel-Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D. A. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10386 · Cited by 6,057
SOM genesis: microbial biomass as a significant source
Miltner, A., Bombach, P., Schmidt-Brücken, B., & Kästner, M. (2012) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-011-9658-z · Cited by 1,123
Mayer, M., Prescott, C. E., Abaker, W. E. A., Augusto, L., Cécillon, L., Ferreira, G. W. D., James, J., Jandl, R., Katzensteiner, K., Laclau, J.-P., et al. (2020) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118127 · Cited by 748
How relevant is recalcitrance for the stabilization of organic matter in soils?
Marschner, B., Brodowski, S., Dreves, A., Gleixner, G., Gude, A., Grootes, P. M., Hamer, U., Heim, A., Jandl, G., Ji, R., et al. (2008) · Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science · doi:10.1002/jpln.200700049 · Cited by 743
Clarholm, M., Skyllberg, U., & Rosling, A. (2015) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.019 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelleher, B. P., & Simpson, A. J.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-07-04
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 4605-4611
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2051406683
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.