The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identification of Regional Soil Quality Factors and Indicators I. Central and Southern High Plains
Abstract
Appropriate indicators for assessing soil quality on a regional scale using the National Resource Inventory (NRI) are unknown. Our objectives were to (i) identify soil quality factors present at a regional scale, (ii) determine which factors vary significantly with land use, and (iii) select soil attributes within these factors that can be used as soil quality indicators for regional‐scale assessment. Ascalon (fine‐loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Aridic Argiustoll) and Amarillo (fine‐loamy, mixed, thermic Aridic Paleustalf) soils were sampled from a statistically representative subset of NRI sample points within the Central and Southern High Plains Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA) and analyzed for 20 soil attributes. Factor analysis was used to identify soil quality factors, and discriminant analysis was used to identify the factors and indicators most sensitive to land use within each MLRA. In the Central High Plains, five soil quality factors were identified, with the organic matter and color factors varying significantly with land use. Discriminant analysis selected total organic C (TOC) and total N as the most sensitive indicators of soil quality at a regional scale. In the Southern High Plains, six factors were identified, with water stable aggregate (WSA) content, TOC, and soil salinity varying significantly with land use. Discriminant analysis selected TOC and WSA content as the most sensitive indicators of soil quality in the Southern High Plains. Total organic C was the only indicator that consistently showed significant differences between land uses in both regions.
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
Defining and Assessing Soil Quality
Doran, J. W., & Parkin, T. B. (1994) · SSSA Special Publications · doi:10.2136/sssaspecpub35.c1 · Cited by 2,176
A Suggestion for Using Powerful and Informative Tests of Normality
D'agostino, R. B., Belanger, A., & D'agostino, R. B. (1990) · The American Statistician · doi:10.2307/2684359 · Cited by 1,809
Changes in soil carbon inventories following cultivation of previously untilled soils
Davidson, E. A., & Ackerman, I. L. (1993) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/bf00000786 · Cited by 927
Cited by
Near‐Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy–Principal Components Regression Analyses of Soil Properties
Chang, C.-W., Laird, D. A., Mausbach, M. J., & Hurburgh, C. R. (2001) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2001.652480x · Cited by 1,926
Karlen, D. L., Ditzler, C. A., & Andrews, S. S. (2003) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/s0016-7061(03)00039-9 · Cited by 617
Self-citationDesigning a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management
Andrews, S. S., & Carroll, C. R. (2001) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1573:dasqat]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 506
On-Farm Assessment of Soil Quality in California's Central Valley
Andrews, S. S., Mitchell, J. P., Mancinelli, R., Karlen, D. L., Hartz, T. K., Horwath, W. R., Pettygrove, G. S., Scow, K. M., & Munk, D. S. (2002) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2002.0012 · Cited by 450
Self-citationSoil quality: Current concepts and applications
Karlen, D. L., Andrews, S. S., & Doran, J. W. (2001) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(01)74029-1 · Cited by 430
Self-citation
Metadata
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: Identification of Regional Soil Quality Factors and Indicators I. Central and Southern High Plains. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2000.6462115x
- The paper
- Brejda, J. J., Moorman, T. B., Karlen, D. L., & Dao, T. H. (2000). Identification of Regional Soil Quality Factors and Indicators I. Central and Southern High Plains. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6462115x
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.