Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

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

Stott, D. E., Andrews, S. S., Liebig, M. A., Wienhold, B. J., Karlen, D. L.·2010·Soil Science Society of America Journal

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2009.0029

Cites

48 of 48 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 48 references

Cited by

See all 317

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.