Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Soil Microbial, Chemical and Physical Properties in Continuous Cotton and Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems

Acosta-Martínez, V., Zobeck, T. M., Allen, Vivien·2004·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Continuous monoculture systems can reduce soil organic matter because of low organic inputs and disturbance from tillage practices. Integrated cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) cropping and livestock production systems in West Texas may provide more sustainable alternatives to the traditional continuous cotton system and improve soil quality. Our study was conducted on a Pullman soil (Fine, mixed, thermic Torrertic Paleustolls) after 5 yr as a complete randomized block design (three replications) that compared continuous cotton and an integrated livestock‐crop system with a perennial warm‐season grass pasture ( Bothriochloa bladhii ) paddock and two paddocks (two stages) of a rotation (wheat [ Triticum aestivum ]‐fallow‐rye [ Secale cereale ]‐cotton). Total N (average: 1.0 g kg −1 soil) remained similar among systems and soil pH was >8.1. Organic C was higher (13.5 g kg −1 soil) in perennial pasture compared with continuous cotton (9.0 g kg −1 soil) at 0 to 5 cm. A similar trend was found for the soil aggregate stability. Soil microbial biomass C (C mic ) was greater in perennial pasture (193 mg kg −1 soil) and the rotation under rye and cotton (237 mg kg −1 soil) compared with continuous cotton (124 mg kg −1 soil) at 0 to 5 cm, and in perennial pasture at 5 to 10 and 10 to 15 cm. Soil microbial biomass N (N mic ) showed similar trends. Soil enzyme activities were greater in perennial pasture and the rotation (under rye and cotton) than under continuous cotton at 0 to 5 cm. The integrated crop‐livestock system had higher protozoa (20:4ω6c = 1.98%) and fungi (18:3ω9c = 1.30%) than continuous cotton (20:4ω6c = 1.09%; 18:3ω9c = 0.76%). These findings suggest positive differences in soil function and sustainability of the integrated crop–livestock system compared with continuous cotton.

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/sssaj2004.1875

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Acosta-Martínez, V., Zobeck, T. M., & Allen, V.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-11
Volume
68
Issue
6
Pages
1875-1884
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2046559488
Cited by
200
References
3
FWCI
9.91
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: Soil Microbial, Chemical and Physical Properties in Continuous Cotton and Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2004.1875
The paper
Acosta-Martínez, V., Zobeck, T. M., & Allen, V. (2004). Soil Microbial, Chemical and Physical Properties in Continuous Cotton and Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.1875

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.