Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aggregate‐Protected Carbon in No‐tillage and Conventional Tillage Agroecosystems Using Carbon‐14 Labeled Plant Residue

Bossuyt, Heleen, Six, Johan, Hendrix, Paul F.·2002·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

No‐tillage (NT) management can result in higher soil organic matter (SOM) levels than conventional tillage (CT) practices. The objective was to investigate the underlying mechanisms in which C is protected under NT management, using 14 C‐labeled plant residue as a tracer. Samples were collected from the Horseshoe Bend Research area in Athens, GA. Aggregate‐size distribution, total C, and 14 C were measured together with different pools of aggregate‐associated C and 14 C from 21‐d laboratory incubations of intact and crushed macro and microaggregates. Compared with CT, NT practices resulted in higher total C and 14 C in all aggregate‐size classes of the 0‐ to 2.5‐ and 2.5‐ to 5‐cm layers, except for 14 C in the <53‐ and 250‐ to 2000‐μm aggregate‐size classes at the 2.5‐ to 5‐cm layer. At the 5‐ to 15‐cm depth, more 14 C was found in the >2000‐μm aggregate‐size class under NT than CT. In contrast, more 14 C was found in the 53‐ to 250‐μm and <53‐μm size classes under CT than NT. Unprotected C and 14 C pools, microaggregate‐protected and micro within macroaggregate‐protected C and 14 C pools were significantly higher for the 0‐ to 2.5‐ and 2.5‐ to 5‐cm layers under NT than CT. Carbon‐14 pools were generally higher in CT than in NT at the 5‐ to 15‐cm depth, while total C did not differ between tillage treatments at this depth. The results indicate that (i) more young C ( 14 C) is accumulated in the subsurface soil of CT than NT, but this C is not stabilized in the long term, and (ii) short‐ and long‐term stabilization of C is higher in the soil surface layers under NT compared with CT. This C stabilization occurs mainly at the microaggregate level.

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/sssaj2002.1965

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Bossuyt, H., Six, J., & Hendrix, P. F.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
1965-1973
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2005791005
Cited by
172
References
2
FWCI
9.13
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‐Protected Carbon in No‐tillage and Conventional Tillage Agroecosystems Using Carbon‐14 Labeled Plant Residue. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2002.1965
The paper
Bossuyt, H., Six, J., & Hendrix, P. F. (2002). Aggregate‐Protected Carbon in No‐tillage and Conventional Tillage Agroecosystems Using Carbon‐14 Labeled Plant Residue. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.1965

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.