The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Different Soil Carbon Determination Methods
Abstract
Determining soil carbon (C) with high precision is an essential requisite for the success of the terrestrial C sequestration program. The informed choice of management practices for different terrestrial ecosystems rests upon accurately measuring the potential for C sequestration. Numerous methods are available for assessing soil C. Chemical analysis of field-collected samples using a dry combustion method is regarded as the standard method. However, conventional sampling of soil and their subsequent chemical analysis is expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, these methods are not sufficiently sensitive to identify small changes over time in response to alterations in management practices or changes in land use. Presently, several different in situ analytic methods are being developed purportedly offering increased accuracy, precision and cost-effectiveness over traditional ex situ methods. We consider that, at this stage, a comparative discussion of different soil C determination methods will improve the understanding needed to develop a standard protocol.
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
Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world
BATJES, N. H. (1996) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01386.x · Cited by 3,213
How biotech can transform biofuels
Lynd, L. R., Laser, M. S., Bransby, D., Dale, B. E., Davison, B., Hamilton, R., Himmel, M., Keller, M., McMillan, J. D., Sheehan, J., et al. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0208-169 · Cited by 1,121
Extremely thermophilic microorganisms for biomass conversion: status and prospects
Blumer-Schuette, S. E., Kataeva, I., Westpheling, J., Adams, M. W., & Kelly, R. M. (2008) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2008.04.007 · Cited by 269
Cited by
Valid inferences about soil carbon in heterogeneous landscapes
Stanley, P., Spertus, J., Chiartas, J., Stark, P. B., & Bowles, T. (2023) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116323 · Cited by 95
Gras, A., Beaudoin, G., Molson, J., Plante, B., Bussière, B., Lemieux, J. M., & Dupont, P. P. (2017) · International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control · doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.03.002 · Cited by 46
Brinton, W., Basso, B., Millar, N., Covey, K., Bettigole, C., Jagadamma, S., Loeffler, F., & Kolodney, S. (2025) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.1002/agj2.70018 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Chatterjee, A., Lal, R., Wielopolski, L., Martin, M. Z., & Ebinger, M. H.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-04-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 164-178
- ISSN
- 0735-2689 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-7836
- OpenAlex
- W2120895581
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.76
- 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: Evaluation of Different Soil Carbon Determination Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07352680902776556
- The paper
- Chatterjee, A., Lal, R., Wielopolski, L., Martin, M. Z., & Ebinger, M. H. (2009). Evaluation of Different Soil Carbon Determination Methods. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680902776556
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.
