Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

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

Comparison of Labile Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Techniques

McLauchlan, Kendra K., Hobbie, Sarah E.·2004·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Labile soil organic carbon (SOC L ), soil organic carbon with a relatively short turnover time, is an important source of energy for the belowground portion of ecosystems and is sensitive to land management changes. Many techniques exist to differentiate and quantify labile SOC, but rarely have these been directly compared. Here we compare the results of four common chemical, physical, and biological methods of empirically measuring labile SOC with soils taken from 33 restored grasslands that differ in length of time since cessation of agriculture. Among sites, microbial biomass C, acid‐hydrolyzable C, the amount of C respired after 12 d of a laboratory incubation, and light fraction carbon (LFC) were all positively correlated with one another, although there were large differences in the sizes of the pools estimated with each method. Acid‐hydrolyzable C consistently provided the largest estimate and 12‐d incubations the smallest estimate of labile SOC. The quantity of labile SOC obtained by fitting respiration data from a laboratory incubation with a two‐pool model with separate decay constants for each pool was also positively correlated with the three measures of labile soil C not derived from respiration data, although this technique was sensitive to whether the decay constant of the recalcitrant pool was constrained or not. All methods showed increases in labile SOC pools with increases in total soil organic carbon (SOC T ) pools, although the rate of change varied between techniques. The size of stable aggregates correlated positively with hydrolyzable C and SOC T , supporting the idea that aggregates may physically protect soil C from decomposition, although the degree to which this C is labile is unclear.

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/sssaj2004.1616

Cites

43 of 43 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 43 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
McLauchlan, K. K., & Hobbie, S. E.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09
Volume
68
Issue
5
Pages
1616-1625
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2088089571
Cited by
295
References
43
FWCI
16.33
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: Comparison of Labile Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2004.1616
The paper
McLauchlan, K. K., & Hobbie, S. E. (2004). Comparison of Labile Soil Organic Matter Fractionation Techniques. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.1616

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.