Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clay mineralogy determines the importance of biological versus abiotic processes for macroaggregate formation and stabilization

Denef, K., Six, J.·2005·European Journal of Soil Science

Abstract

Summary: Plant residues, living roots and microbial activity play an important role in aggregate formation and the stabilization of soil organic carbon (SOC), but their impact might differ among soils with different clay mineralogy. We investigated the effect of these organic agents on aggregation and SOC during a 76‐day incubation of 2‐mm sieved soil from an illitic Kastanozem and a kaolinitic Ferralsol, subjected to the following treatments: (i) control (no residue input or plant growth), (ii) residue input, (iii) living plants, and (iv) residue input and living plants. After 46 and 76 days, aggregate size distribution, aggregate‐associated SOC and microbial‐C were measured. In both soils, microbial‐C was less in the control than in the residue and/or plant treatments. After 46 days, new large macroaggregates (> 2000 µm) were formed in the control treatment of the kaolinitic soil, but not of the illitic soil. Control macroaggregates in the kaolinitic soil were formed out of silt and clay particles without accumulating C. Residue input and plant growth had a greater positive effect on macroaggregate formation in the illitic than in the kaolinitic soil. A stronger relation was found between microbial‐C and amount of large macroaggregates in the illitic than in the kaolinitic soil. We conclude that kaolinitic soils can rapidly form macroaggregates independent of biological processes due to physical or electrostatic interactions between the 1:1 clay minerals and oxides. However, biological processes led to stronger organic bonds between the illite compared with the kaolinite clay, resulting in more macroaggregates with long‐term stability in the illitic than in the kaolinitic 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00682.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Metadata

Authors
Denef, K., & Six, J.
Venue
European Journal of Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-12-09
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
469-479
ISSN
  • 1351-0754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2389
OpenAlex
W1986678961
Cited by
254
References
2
FWCI
6.42
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: Clay mineralogy determines the importance of biological versus abiotic processes for macroaggregate formation and stabilization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00682.x
The paper
Denef, K., & Six, J. (2005). Clay mineralogy determines the importance of biological versus abiotic processes for macroaggregate formation and stabilization. European Journal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00682.x

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.