CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldSoil Science and Environmental Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance of Soil Condition Indicators Across Taxonomic Groups and Land Uses

Schipper, L. A., Sparling, G. P.·2000·Soil Science Society of America Journal
DOI 10.2136/sssaj2000.641300x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Information on soil conditions in New Zealand is needed to assess soil quality at a national scale. We tested a standard set of 16 primary indicators at 29 sites (0–10 cm depth) across nine soil great groups with matched examples of indigenous forest, plantation forest, pastures, and crops. Soils under indigenous forest were acidic (pH 5.5–5.7), low in Olsen P (5–14 μg cm −3 ), with high microbial C (814–1228 μg cm −3 ), respiration (1.1–1.4 μg C cm −3 h −1 ), total C (31.8–52.9 mg cm −3 ), macroporosity (9.6–11.7% v/v), and total available water (29.2–31.5% v/v). Plantation forest soils had generally similar characteristics. Pasture soils were less acidic (pH 5.3–6.9) than forest soils, but with more available P (5.5–43.0 μg cm −3 ), higher total C (30.7–141.5 mg cm −3 ), total N (2.7–9.0 mg cm −3 ), and mineralizable N (68–175 μg cm −3 ). The physical condition was similar to forest soils. Cropped soil had low total C (20–34 mg cm −3 ), microbial C (160–956 μg cm −3 ), respiration (0.29–1.33 μg C cm −3 h −1 ), and total available water (6.7–30.1% v/v), but high pH (5.8–7.2), Olsen P (11.2–199 μg cm −3 ), and bulk density (0.96–1.3 g cm −3 ). Principal component analysis identified outlier sites and grouped land uses independently of soil great groups. Some indicators were less useful because of high variability (unsaturated hydraulic conductivity), correlation to other indicators (microbial C) or interpretation difficulties (respiration). Overall, the standardized approach provided useful information about soil conditions on a national scale.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2000.641300x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 43 references

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Beets P.N., 1988, Above‐ground dry matter and nutrient content of Pinus radiata as affected by lupin, fertiliser, thinning, and stand age, N.Z. J. For. Sci, 18, 43
  2. Carter M.R., 1997, Soil quaility for crop production and ecosystem health, 1
  3. Doran J.W., 1996, Methods for assessing soil quality
  4. Gadgill R.L., 1984, Lupinus arboreus and inorganic fertiliser as sources of nitrogen for Pinus radiata on a coastal sand, N.Z. J. For. Sci, 14, 257
  5. Garlynd M.J., 1994, Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment, 159
  6. Harris R.F., 1994, Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment, 23
  7. Larson W.E., 1994, Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment, 37
  8. New Zealand Soil Bureau, 1968, N.Z. Soil Bur. Bull
  9. Olsen S.R., 1954, USDA Circular 939
  10. Soil Survey Staff, 1992, Keys to soil taxonomy
  11. Sparling G.P., 1997, Biological indicators of soil health and sustainable productivity, 97
  12. SYSTAT, 1992, Systat for Windows: Statistics. Ver. 5
  13. Webb T.H., 1994, Classification of land according to its versatility for orchard crop production

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–144 of 144

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schipper, L. A., & Sparling, G. P.
Affiliations
Landcare Research Private Bag 3127 Hamilton New Zealand
Corresponding author
Sparling, G. P.
ORCID
Schipper, L. A.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-01
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
300-311
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
DOI
10.2136/sssaj2000.641300x
OpenAlex
W2088708205
Cited by
144
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
11.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • New Zealand Ministry for the Environment Sustainable Management Fund
  • Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology (C09629)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Science and Environmental Management
Keywords
soil quality assessment, land use, pasture soils, agricultural soils, soil pH, Olsen phosphorus, microbial biomass carbon, soil respiration, soil organic carbon, soil nitrogen, macroporosity, available water capacity, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, New Zealand soils

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