The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Aggregate and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics under Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems
Abstract
Tillage generally reduces aggregation and particulate organic matter (POM) content. We hypothesized that reduced C sequestration in conventional tillage (CT) compared with no‐tillage (NT) is related to differences in aggregate turnover. Four soils (Haplustoll, Fragiudalf, Hapludalf, and Paleudalf), each with NT, CT, and native vegetation (NV) treatments, were separated into aggregates. Free light fraction (LF) and intraaggregate POM (iPOM) were isolated. At one site we used 13 C natural abundance to differentiate crop‐ and grassland‐derived C. Concentrations of coarse iPOM C (250–2000 μm iPOM in macroaggregates), expressed on a per unit aggregate weight (g iPOM C kg −1 aggregate), did not differ between tillage treatments. In contrast, concentrations of fine iPOM C (53–250 μm iPOM in macroaggregates) were less in CT compared to NT macroaggregates. On a whole soil basis, fine iPOM C was on average 51% less in CT than in NT, and accounted for 21% of the total C difference between NT and CT. The concentration of free LF C was not affected by tillage, but was on average 45% less in the cultivated systems than NV. Proportions of crop‐derived C in macroaggregates were similar in NT and CT, but were three times greater in microaggregates from NT than microaggregates from CT. We suggest that a faster turnover rate of macroaggregates in CT compared with NT leads to a slower rate of microaggregate formation within macroaggregates and less stabilization of new SOM in free microaggregates under CT.
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
Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils
TISDALL, J. M., & OADES, J. M. (1982) · Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x · Cited by 6,267
Cited by
Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils
Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., & Paustian, K. (2002) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1016125726789 · Cited by 4,633
Self-citationSoil structure and management: a review
Bronick, C. J., & Lal, R. (2005) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005 · Cited by 4,463
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S., & Denef, K. (2004) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008 · Cited by 4,410
Self-citationSix, J., Elliott, E. T., & Paustian, K. (2000) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(00)00179-6 · Cited by 3,397
Self-citationBacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., & Batten, K. M. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0347 · Cited by 2,176
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Six, J., Elliott, E. T., & Paustian, K.
- Venue
- Soil Science Society of America Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1350-1358
- ISSN
- 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0661
- OpenAlex
- W2079725226
- Cited by
- 1,474
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.15
- 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: Aggregate and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics under Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351350x
- The paper
- Six, J., Elliott, E. T., & Paustian, K. (1999). Aggregate and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics under Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351350x
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.