The DOI matches its Crossref record.
SOME CONTROLS ON THE RELEASE OF DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON BY PLANT TISSUES AND SOILS
Abstract
Soil and plant tissues were used to examine the effect on the release of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) of rinsing over time at two temperatures and under oxic and anoxic conditions in a laboratory incubation. The release of DOC over 60 days of incubation ranged from 0.5 to 189 mg DOC g−1 oven-dry material and was correlated inversely with the degree of decomposition of the material: fresh maple leaves > old maple leaves > Sphagnum moss > fibric peat > hemic peat = sapric peat > Inceptisol A horizon. Rates of DOC release were similar through the duration of the experiment, except for the fresh maple leaves, where release rates fell after 3 day. Rinsing, by the replacement of water in the incubating samples after 20 day, produced slower rates of DOC release, except in the Inceptisol A and sapric peat samples. There was no significant difference between DOC release under oxic and anoxic conditions, except for the Inceptisol A soil, where DOC release was greater under anoxic than under oxic conditions. The rate of DOC release at 22 °C was an average of 2.4 times greater than at 4 °C, translating into Q10 values of about 1.6. At 22 °C under oxic conditions, DOC production accounted for 14 to 58% (average 24%) of the total C released as DOC + CO2, with the highest proportion in the maple leaves. Under anoxic conditions, DOC production accounted for 63 to 95% (average 82%) of the total C released as DOC + CO2 + CH4. Production of CH4 under anoxic conditions was minor, accounting for <1% of the total C released. Under oxic conditions at 22 °C, the incubations released between 2 and 107% of the organic C contained in the samples, the largest proportion of which was released from the plant tissues. Microbial utilization of DOC meant that some C was double-counted, both as DOC and as subsequently emitted CO2. Under anoxic conditions, 0.0 to 49% of the sample organic C was mineralized. The release of DOC represents the balance between production, adsorption, and desorption and microbial utilization. This release differs clearly among samples and among treatment effects.
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
Conant, R. T., Ryan, M. G., Ågren, G. I., Birge, H. E., Davidson, E. A., Eliasson, P. E., Evans, S. E., Frey, S. D., Giardina, C. P., Hopkins, F. M., et al. (2011) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x · Cited by 1,635
Biogeochemistry of paddy soils
Kögel-Knabner, I., Amelung, W., Cao, Z., Fiedler, S., Frenzel, P., Jahn, R., Kalbitz, K., Kölbl, A., & Schloter, M. (2010) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.03.009 · Cited by 1,245
The Role of Bryophytes in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling
Turetsky, M. R. (2003) · The Bryologist · doi:10.1639/05 · Cited by 561
Carbon cycling in peatlands A review of processes and controls
Blodau, C. (2002) · Environmental Reviews · doi:10.1139/a02-004 · Cited by 400
Wen, Y., Freeman, B., Ma, Q., Evans, C. D., Chadwick, D. R., Zang, H., & Jones, D. L. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121179 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, T. R., & Dalva, M.
- Venue
- Soil Science
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 166
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-47
- ISSN
- 0038-075X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125222250
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.99
- 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: SOME CONTROLS ON THE RELEASE OF DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON BY PLANT TISSUES AND SOILS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00010694-200101000-00007
- The paper
- Moore, T. R., & Dalva, M. (2001). SOME CONTROLS ON THE RELEASE OF DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON BY PLANT TISSUES AND SOILS. Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-200101000-00007
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.
