The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Through the eye of the needle: a review of isotope approaches to quantify microbial processes mediating soil carbon balance
Open accessAbstract
Summary: For soils in carbon balance, losses of soil carbon from biological activity are balanced by organic inputs from vegetation. Perturbations, such as climate or land use change, have the potential to disrupt this balance and alter soil–atmosphere carbon exchanges. As the quantification of soil organic matter stocks is an insensitive means of detecting changes, certainly over short timescales, there is a need to apply methods that facilitate a quantitative understanding of the biological processes underlying soil carbon balance. We outline the processes by which plant carbon enters the soil and critically evaluate isotopic methods to quantify them. Then, we consider the balancing CO 2 flux from soil and detail the importance of partitioning the sources of this flux into those from recent plant assimilate and those from native soil organic matter. Finally, we consider the interactions between the inputs of carbon to soil and the losses from soil mediated by biological activity. We emphasize the key functional role of the microbiota in the concurrent processing of carbon from recent plant inputs and native soil organic matter. We conclude that quantitative isotope labelling and partitioning methods, coupled to those for the quantification of microbial community substrate use, offer the potential to resolve the functioning of the microbial control point of soil carbon balance in unprecedented detail. Contents Summary 19 I. Introduction 20 II. Inputs 20 III. Outputs 24 IV. Interactions between carbon inputs and outputs from soil 27 V. Conclusions 29 Acknowledgements 29 References 30
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
Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978–2003
Bellamy, P. H., Loveland, P. J., Bradley, R. I., Lark, R. M., & Kirk, G. J. D. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04038 · Cited by 1,131
Amundson, R. (2001) · Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.29.1.535 · Cited by 721
BODDY, E., HILL, P., FARRAR, J., & JONES, D. (2007) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.09.030 · Cited by 251
Cited by
Carbon input by roots into the soil: Quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale
Pausch, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13850 · Cited by 1,010
Mayer, M., Prescott, C. E., Abaker, W. E. A., Augusto, L., Cécillon, L., Ferreira, G. W. D., James, J., Jandl, R., Katzensteiner, K., Laclau, J.-P., et al. (2020) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118127 · Cited by 748
van der Wal, A., Geydan, T. D., Kuyper, T. W., & de Boer, W. (2013) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/1574-6976.12001 · Cited by 404
Wilson, C. H., Strickland, M. S., Hutchings, J. A., Bianchi, T. S., & Flory, S. L. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14070 · Cited by 319
Thiessen, S., Gleixner, G., Wutzler, T., & Reichstein, M. (2013) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.029 · Cited by 233
Metadata
- Authors
- Paterson, E., Midwood, A. J., & Millard, P.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-02
- Volume
- 184
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-33
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2165290631
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 34.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Through the eye of the needle: a review of isotope approaches to quantify microbial processes mediating soil carbon balance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03001.x
- The paper
- Paterson, E., Midwood, A. J., & Millard, P. (2009). Through the eye of the needle: a review of isotope approaches to quantify microbial processes mediating soil carbon balance. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03001.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.