Cited by 228Soil and Land Suitability AnalysisSoil Management and Crop YieldSoil Science and Environmental Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the productivity function of soils. A review

Open access

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 · 10.1051/agro/2009057

Cites

130 of 130 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 136 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Agronomic Interpretations Working Group (1995) Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops. 1. Spring-seeded small grains, in: Pettapiece W.W. (Ed.), Tech. Bull. 1995-6E, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, 90 p.
  2. Blum W.E.H. (2006) Soil Resources — The basis of human society and the environment, Bodenkultur 57, 197–202.
  3. Bodenaufnahmesysteme in Österreich (2001) Bodeninformationen für Land-, Forst-, Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, Naturschutz-, Landschafts-, Landes- und Raumplanung, Agrarstrukurelle Planung, Bodensanierung und -regeneration sowie Universitäten, Schulen und Bürger. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Bodenkundlichen Gesellschaft Heft 62, zugleich eine Publikation des Umweltbundesamtes Wien, 2001, 221 p.
  4. EC (2006) COM 2006/231 2006, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Sicial Committee and the Committee of the Regions-Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 22.9.2006.
  5. Flach K.W. (1986) Modeling of soil productivity and related land classification, in: Siderius W. (Ed.), Land evaluation for landuse planning and conservation in I sloping areas. International Workshop, Enschede, The Netherlands, 17–21 December 1984, Publication 40, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement/ILRI, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  6. Gavrilyuk F.Y. (1974) Bonitirovka pochv, Moskva, Vysshaya shkola, 270 p.
  7. Hansen S., Jensen H.E., Nielsen N.E., Svendsen H. (1990) DAISY: Soil Plant Atmoshere System Model, NPO Report No. A10, The National Agency for Environmental Protection, Copenhagen, 272 p.
  8. Hartmann K.-J., Finnern J., Cordsen E. (1999) Bewertung von Bodenfunktionen auf Grundlage der Bodenschätzung, ein Verfahrensvergleich, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162, 179–181. · DOI
  9. Hijmans R.J., Giuking-Lens I.M., van Diepen C.A. (1994) Usérs guide for the WOFOST 6.0 crop growth simulation model, Technical Document 12, DLO Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen, 145 p.
  10. Karmanov I.I., Bulgakov D.S., Karmanova L.A., Putilin E.I. (2002) Modern aspects of the assessment of land quality and soil fertility, Eurasian Soil Sci. 35, 7, 754–760.
  11. Klingebiel A.A., Montgomery P.H. (1961) Land capability classification. USDA Agricultural Handbook 210, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
  12. Lichtfouse E., Navarrete M., Debaeke P., Souchère V., Alberola C. (2009) Sustainable Agriculture, Springer, 1st ed., 645 p., ISBN: 978-90-481-2665-1.
  13. Medvedev V.V., Bulygin S. Yu, Laktionova T.N., Derevyanko R.G. (2002) Criteria for the Evaluation of Ukrainian Land Suitability for Growing Cereal Crops, Eurasian Soil Sci. 35, 192–202 (Pochvovedenie, 2002, No. 2, 216–227).
  14. Ochola W.D., Mwonya R., Mwarasomba L.I., Wambua M.M. (2006) Farm-level Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture, Classification and description of farm recommendation units for extension impact assessment in Koru, Kenya, in: Häni F.J., Pintér L., Herrens H.R. (Eds.), From Common Principles to Common Practice, Proceedings and outputs of the first Symposium of the International Forum on Assessing Sustainability in Agriculture (INFASA), March 16, 2006, Bern, Switzerland, pp. 49–76.
  15. Pease J., Coughlin R. (1996) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition, prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA.
  16. Peerlkamp P.K. (1967) Visual estimation of soil structure, in: de Boodt M., de Leenherr D.E., Frese H., Low A.J., Peerlkamp P.K. (Eds.), West European Methods for Soil Structure Determination, Vol. 2 (11), State Faculty Agricultural Science, Ghent, Belgium, pp. 216–223.
  17. Preetz H. (2003) Bewertung von Bodenfunktionen für die praktische Umsetzung des Boden-schutzes (dargestellt am Beispiel eines Untersuchungsgebiets in Sachsen-Anhalt), Ph-D thesis Halle-Wittenberg, 196 p.
  18. Ritchie J.T., Godwin D.C. (1993) Simulation of Nitrogen Dynamics in the Soil Plant System with the CERES-models, Agrarinformatik 24, 215–230.
  19. Shepherd T.G. (2000) Visual soil assessment, Volume 1, Field guide for cropping and pastoral grazing on flat to rolling country, Horizons.mw/Landcare Research, Palmerston North, 84 p.
  20. Shepherd T.G. (2009) Visual Soil Assessment. Volume 1. Field guide for pastoral grazing and cropping on flat to rolling country, 2nd ed., Horizons Regional Council, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 118 p.
  21. Storie R.E. (1933) An index for rating the agricultural value of soils, Agricultural Experiment, Station Bulletin 556, University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkley, CA.
  22. Tóth T., Pásztor L., Várallyay G., Tóth G. (2007) Overview of soil information and soil protection policies in Hungary, in: Hengl T., Panagos P., Jones A., Tóth G. (Eds.), Status and prospect of soil information in southeastern europe: soil databases, projects and applications, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 189 p., pp. 77–86.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 228

Metadata

Authors
Mueller, L., Schindler, U., Mirschel, W., Shepherd, T. G., Ball, B. C., Helming, K., Rogasik, J., Eulenstein, F., & Wiggering, H.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (DE)
  • Julius Kühn-Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
Mueller, Lothar
Venue
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
Published
2010-09
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
601-614
ISSN
  • 1773-0155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1774-0746
OpenAlex
W2143430123
Cited by
228
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
26.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Agronomy for Sustainable Development (publishedVersion)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Soil and Land Suitability Analysis
  • 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
Keywords
soil quality, soil constraints, soil classification, visual soil assessment, soil degradation, desertification, food security, soil management, soil conservation, agroecological zoning, crop growth simulation, ecosystem modeling

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