Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organic Matter Dynamics and Carbon Sequestration Rates for a Tillage Chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol

de M. Sá, João Carlos, Cerri, Carlos C., Dick, Warren A., Lal, Rattan, Filho, Solismar P. Venske, Piccolo, Marisa C., Feigl, Brigitte E.·2001·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Amounts and rates of C sequestration under no‐tillage are not known for a major ecological region of south Brazil. These were assessed in a Brazilian Oxisol under a plow and no‐tillage chronosequence located in Paraná State. The chronosequence consisted of six treatments: (i) native field (NF); (ii) 1‐yr plow conversion of native field to cropland (PNF‐1); (iii) no‐tillage for 10 yr (NT‐10); (iv) no‐tillage for 20 yr (NT‐20); (v) no‐tillage for 22 yr (NT‐22); and (vi) conventional tillage for 22 yr (CT‐22). Soil samples were collected from five depths. No‐tillage, compared with the NF treatment, caused a significant increase in soil organic C (SOC) storage. More than 60% of this increase occurred in the 0‐ to 10‐cm soil layer. There was a decrease in the amount of SOC in the CT‐22 compared with the NF soil treatment and 97% of this loss also occurred in the 0‐ to 10‐cm layer. There was a close relationship between the SOC content and the amount of crop residues input ( R 2 = 0.74, P ≤ 0.05). There were increased SOC concentrations in the finer particle‐size fractions (<20 μm) of no‐tillage surface soil compared with the NF or CT‐22 soils. However, the percentage of SOC derived from crop residues in no‐tillage treatments, as assessed by 13C natural abundance (δ), was generally greater in the coarse (>20 μm) than in the finer (<20 μm) particle‐size fractions. The C sequestration rate for no‐tillage was 80.6 g C m −2 yr −1 for the 0‐ to 20‐cm depth and 99.4 g C m −2 yr −1 for the 0‐ to 40‐cm depth. The no‐tillage C sequestration potential for South Brazil was estimated as 9.37 Tg C yr −1

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 · 10.2136/sssaj2001.6551486x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
de M. Sá, J. C., Cerri, C. C., Dick, W. A., Lal, R., Filho, S. P. V., Piccolo, M. C., & Feigl, B. E.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
1486-1499
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W1973003103
Cited by
390
References
4
FWCI
21.77
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: Organic Matter Dynamics and Carbon Sequestration Rates for a Tillage Chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2001.6551486x
The paper
de M. Sá, J. C., Cerri, C. C., Dick, W. A., Lal, R., Filho, S. P. V., Piccolo, M. C., & Feigl, B. E. (2001). Organic Matter Dynamics and Carbon Sequestration Rates for a Tillage Chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2001.6551486x

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.