The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic nitrogen in soil
Abstract
We recently developed two rapid and precise chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic N in soils. One method involves determination of the ammonia‐N produced by steam distillation of the soil sample with pH 11.2 phosphate‐borate buffer solution for 8 min. The other involves determination of the ammonium‐N produced by treatment of the soil sample with 2M KCl solution at 100°C for 4 hours. Studies using 33 Brazilian soils showed that the results obtained by these methods were highly correlated with those obtained by anaerobic and aerobic incubation methods of assessing potentially available organic N in soil. The two methods were further evaluated by applying them to 30 Iowa soils and by comparing their results and those obtained by other chemical methods with the results of the incubation methods considered to be the best laboratory methods currently available for assessment of potentially available organic N in soil. The chemical methods used included the acid KMnO4 method, the alkaline KMnO4 method, the CaCl2‐autoclave method, and the NaHCO3 UV method. The incubation methods used involved determination of the ammonium‐N produced by incubation of the soil sample under anaerobic conditions for 1 week or determination of the (ammonium + nitrate + nitrite)‐N produced by incubation of the sample under aerobic conditions for 2 and 12 weeks. The data obtained showed that the results of the two chemical methods evaluated were highly correlated with those obtained by the incubation techniques used for comparison and that the correlations observed with these two methods were higher than those observed with the previously proposed chemical methods. It is concluded that these two rapid and simple methods are the best chemical methods thus far developed for laboratory assessment of potentially available organic N in soil.
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
Cited by
Burger, M., & Jackson, L. E. (2003) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00233-x · Cited by 472
Debosz, K., Petersen, S. O., Kure, L. K., & Ambus, P. (2002) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/s0929-1393(01)00191-3 · Cited by 301
Vegetation and soil patterning in semi‐arid mulga lands of Eastern Australia
TONGWAY, D. J., & LUDWIG, J. A. (1990) · Australian Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1990.tb01017.x · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Gianello, C., & Bremner, J. M.
- Venue
- Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1986-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 215-236
- ISSN
- 0010-3624 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2416
- OpenAlex
- W1999135640
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.58
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic nitrogen in soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00103628609367709
- The paper
- Gianello, C., & Bremner, J. M. (1986). Comparison of chemical methods of assessing potentially available organic nitrogen in soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103628609367709
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.