The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of β‐Glucosidase Activity as a Soil Quality Indicator for the Soil Management Assessment Framework
Abstract
The Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) was developed to assess conservation effects on soil, and uses multiple soil quality indicator measurements to compare soil functioning. Our objective was to develop a SMAF‐compatible scoring equation for soil β‐glucosidase (BG) activity using published data sets representing different soils and management. The resulting equation was an S‐shaped curve: y = a /[1 + b exp(− cx )], where x is the measured BG activity (mg p ‐nitrophenol [PNP] released kg −1 soil h −1 ), a and b are constants, and c is a factor modified by soil classification, texture, and climate. Data from a study conducted near Mandan, ND were used to test the model for sensitivity to crop management systems. Soil organic C (SOC) content at the site measured 247 to 687 g kg −1 , while BG activity ranged from 33 to 675 mg kg −1 h −1 Using SMAF, SOC indicator scores ranged from 0.25 to 0.73, while BG activity scores varied from 0.17 to 0.93. As the work progressed, it became apparent that when BG activity values were normalized to the SOC content, the resulting ratio could indicate C sequestration trends, with ratios of 10 to 17 g PNP kg −1 SOC h −1 reflective of systems in equilibrium. Ratios >17 were mostly from recently altered management systems with SOC contents trending upward, while ratios <10 were generally from soils that were expected to continue to lose soil C. The application of a sensitive C cycling enzyme activity such as BG should improve the SMAF soil quality assessments for soil functions where soil metabolic activity or C‐cycle enzyme activity play a role.
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
Glucosidases and galactosidases in soils
Eivazi, F., & Tabatabai, M. A. (1988) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(88)90141-1 · Cited by 1,611
The Soil Management Assessment Framework: A Quantitative Soil Quality Evaluation Method
Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Cambardella, C. A. (2004) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.1945 · Cited by 1,341 · cited 11×
“…with the identifi cation of an indicator, determining the type of relationship between the indicator and a specifi c soil function, identifying an appropriate mathematical equation(s) describing that relationship, and validating the scoring curve (Andrews et al., 2004; Wienhold et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationField management effects on soil enzyme activities
Bandick, A. K., & Dick, R. P. (1999) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(99)00051-6 · Cited by 1,244
Kennedy, A. C. (1998) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq1998.00472425002700050038x · Cited by 816
Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into practice
Doran, J. W. (2002) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(01)00246-8 · Cited by 805
Taylor, J. P., Wilson, B., Mills, M. S., & Burns, R. G. (2002) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(01)00199-7 · Cited by 743
Soil Enzyme Activities and Biodiversity Measurements as Integrative Microbiological Indicators
Dick, R. P., Breakwell, D. P., & Turco, R. F. (1997) · SSSA Special Publications · doi:10.2136/sssaspecpub49.c15 · Cited by 550
A Framework for Evaluating Physical and Chemical Indicators of Soil Quality
Karlen, D. L., & Stott, D. E. (1994) · SSSA Special Publications · doi:10.2136/sssaspecpub35.c4 · Cited by 489
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-citationSoil microbial biomass, activity and nutrient cycling as indicators of soil health
Sparling, G. P. (1997) · Cited by 426
Cited by
Microbial indicators for soil quality
Schloter, M., Nannipieri, P., Sørensen, S. J., & van Elsas, J. D. (2018) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/s00374-017-1248-3 · Cited by 540
Understanding and enhancing soil biological health: the solution for reversing soil degradation
Lehman, R., Cambardella, C., Stott, D., Acosta-Martinez, V., Manter, D., Buyer, J., Maul, J., Smith, J., Collins, H., Halvorson, J., et al. (2015) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su7010988 · Cited by 449
Self-citationSwab, R. M., Lorenz, N., Byrd, S., & Dick, R. (2017) · Ecological Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.05.012 · Cited by 75
Sensor data fusion for soil health assessment
Veum, K. S., Sudduth, K. A., Kremer, R. J., & Kitchen, N. R. (2017) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.031 · Cited by 57
PARTEY, S. T., ZOUGMORE, R. B., THEVATHASAN, N. V., & PREZIOSI, R. F. (2019) · Pedosphere · doi:10.1016/s1002-0160(17)60433-8 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Stott, D. E., Andrews, S. S., Liebig, M. A., Wienhold, B. J., & Karlen, D. L.
- Venue
- Soil Science Society of America Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-119
- ISSN
- 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0661
- OpenAlex
- W2018866683
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 18.73
- 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: Evaluation of β‐Glucosidase Activity as a Soil Quality Indicator for the Soil Management Assessment Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2136/sssaj2009.0029
- The paper
- Stott, D. E., Andrews, S. S., Liebig, M. A., Wienhold, B. J., & Karlen, D. L. (2010). Evaluation of β‐Glucosidase Activity as a Soil Quality Indicator for the Soil Management Assessment Framework. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0029
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.