The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 30 of the 100 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview
Open accessAbstract
Bioregenerative life support systems (BLSS) are conceived of and developed so as to provide food sources for crewed missions to the Moon or Mars. The in situ resource utilization (ISRU) approach aims to reduce terrestrial input into a BLSS by using native regoliths and recycled organic waste as primary resources. The combination of BLSS and ISRU may allow sustainable food production on Moon and Mars. This task poses several challenges, including the effects of partial gravity, the limited availability of oxygen and water, and the self-sustaining management of resources. Lunar and Martian regoliths are not available on Earth; therefore, space research studies are conducted on regolith simulants that replicate the physicochemical properties of extra-terrestrial regoliths (as assessed in situ by previous missions). This review provides an overview of the physicochemical properties and mineralogical composition of commercially available Lunar and Martian regolith simulants. Subsequently, it describes potential strategies and sustainable practices for creating regolith simulants akin to terrestrial soil, which is a highly dynamic environment where microbiota and humified organic matter interact with the mineral moiety. These strategies include the amendment of simulants with composted organic wastes, which can turn nutrient-poor and alkaline crushed rocks into efficient life-sustaining substrates equipped with enhanced physical, hydraulic, and chemical properties. In this regard, we provide a comprehensive analysis of recent scientific works focusing on the exploitation of regolith simulant-based substrates as plant growth media. The literature discussion helps identify the main critical aspects and future challenges related to sustainable space farming by the in situ use and enhancement of Lunar and Martian resources.
Verified 2026-11-03 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review assesses Lunar and Martian regolith simulants as substrates for plant growth in bioregenerative life support and in situ resource utilization scenarios. It concludes that pure simulants can supply some nutrients but generally lack organic matter and key nutrients such as N, P, and S, and often have unfavorable alkaline, physical, and hydrological properties that require amendment or other treatment.
Key findings
- Across 30 simulants (11 Lunar Mare, 6 Lunar Highlands, 4 Lunar Dust, 9 Martian), no universal simulant exists; mineralogies are heterogeneous, simulants often lack minor/rare phases, and none contain moisture or biological components.
- Bulk chemistry shows SiO₂ at ∼45% in Lunar simulants and ∼41% in Martian simulants; Lunar simulants have higher Al₂O₃ and CaO, while Martian simulants have higher Fe and MgO. Simulants contain K, P, S, and Mn but lack N; pH is above 6 and alkaline in some cases, and the only EC data for Martian simulants are 0.2–0.3 dS m⁻¹. Martian surface perchlorates occur at 0.5–1%, but were absent from all 30 simulants.
- Plant experiments show limitations: Wamelink et al. (2014) grew 14 species on JSC-1A Martian and JSC1-1A Lunar simulants without fertilizers; neither was an adequate nutrient source, Martian simulant outperformed Lunar, tomato and wheat performed well, three species flowered, and only two produced seeds. Wamelink et al. (2019) grew 10 crops with organic residues and nutrient solution, harvested edible parts of 9/10, found biomass highest in Earth control and Martian simulant but significantly lower in Lunar simulant, and only radish, rye, and cress produced seeds.
- Organic amendment improves simulants: compost addition to MMS-1 lowered bulk density from 1.39 g cm⁻³ (pure simulant) to 0.60 g cm⁻³ (pure compost); a 70:30 simulant:compost mixture was best for lettuce hydraulic properties, while red Salanova lettuce in 30:70 showed best crop performance and quality, with 70:30 showing slight decline but greater resource-use sustainability. Gilrain et al. (1999) found compost:simulant ratios 1:0, 3:1, and 1:1 yielded more than 1:3 and 0:1, but overall growth was still lower. Ramírez et al. (2019) tested 65 potato genotypes in Mars-like soil with EC 19.3–52.6 dS m⁻¹; only 40% survived and yielded 0.3–5.2 g tuber plant⁻¹. Eichler et al. (2021) found perchlorate-enriched simulants could not sustain plant growth even with nutrients; JSC-Mars-1A and MMS supported growth with nutrients, but MGS-1 did not due to high alkalinity.
Methods
- Narrative review consulting 74 scientific papers and 10 technical reports on Lunar and Martian regolith simulants published between 1970 and 2021.
- Selected 30 simulants from the Planetary Simulant Database whose petrographic/mineralogical and chemical characteristics were described in 27 scientific papers; categorized as 11 Lunar Mare, 6 Lunar Highlands, 4 Lunar Dust, and 9 Martian simulants.
- Synthesized physicochemical and mineralogical properties, bulk chemistry, hydrological properties, and prior plant-growth experiments; no new primary experimental data were generated.
Limitations
- Stated: no standardized method exists for evaluating regolith efficacy, and many published studies claiming to assess regolith for plant growth used microbiome-contaminated regolith, which is effectively soil. No universal simulant exists; simulants often lack minor/rare phases and contain no moisture or biological components. pH and EC are not provided in the Planetary Simulant Database. No samples have been returned from Mars, and only minimal Lunar material is available on Earth. Commercial simulant documentation can be inadequate, as shown by discrepancies between measured and producer-provided bulk chemistry for MMS-1.
- Stated future challenges: lack of adequate knowledge about the extra-terrestrial environment and best agronomic practices; water management and recycling under microgravity; effects of space environment on plant physiology; and perchlorate remediation for Martian regolith.
- Evident from the text and Table 2: plant-growth experiments vary widely in species, propagation material, sterilization, nutrient supply, crop cycle, and simulant type, limiting direct comparability; the review is narrative and does not perform a quantitative meta-analysis.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 No full text of the sources · 32 Own interpretation · 16 No basis given · 11 Partly supported · 9 Supported · 7 Supported so far · 4 Sources not found · 2 Not supported · 2 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Only three species (radish, rye, and cress) produced seeds.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Wamelink et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.5 says seeds were harvested from radish, rye, and cress for the germination experiment, but that does not mean they were the only species to produce seeds. The Discussion also says tomato and pea formed fruit and viable seeds, contrary to the claim’s “only three.” (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The authors also reported a decrease in unsaturated hydraulic conductivities, which can be explained by the modified hydrodynamics in microgravity.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jones and Or (1999) source
In section 4.1 (ASC-1), the paper states that evidence suggests reduced unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in microgravity, while distinguishing this from saturated conductivity. The same passage links that reduction to modified hydrodynamics as a proposed explanation. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“By simulating a wetting and drying cycle using conventional unsaturated flow models adapted to microgravity, Jones and Or (1999) showed that the retention curve has narrower pore-size distributions in microgravity.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Jones and Or (1999) source
The Summary and Conclusions state that, compared with ground-based wetting and drying simulations, parameters fitted to microgravity data indicate narrower pore-size distributions. This supports the claim as a modeling result, rather than a direct measurement of pore sizes. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The provision of terrestrial resources to permanent extra-terrestrial human settlements is not economically sustainable (Verseux et al., 2016), not only because of the high cost and resource/energy requirements, but also due to the difficulty and time needed to plan and execute launches (Llorente et al., 2018).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Verseux et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says that sending all needed resources from Earth to sustain long-term human bases on Mars does not seem financially sustainable. The cited paper addresses Mars, however, so it does not establish the same conclusion for permanent settlements at all extra-terrestrial locations. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Llorente et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 1 describes the enormous logistical costs of launching and resupplying resources from Earth, and the resources and energy needed to sustain extraterrestrial greenhouses. It does not say that the difficulty or time required to plan and execute launches is a reason, so that part of the explanation attributed to Llorente et al. is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Due to the phytochemistry of the cold and oxidizing environment, toxic perchlorate salts occur commonly on the Martian surface in concentrations of 0.5-1% (Oze et al., 2021); however, they were not present in any of the 30 simulants.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Oze et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports perchlorate wherever landers and rovers have explored and describes it as detrimental to plant growth. It says concentrations vary by location and depth, reaching as high as 2 wt.%; Section 2.1 identifies 0.5 and 1 wt.% as concentrations added in experiments, not as a commonly observed Martian range. The Introduction discusses possible atmospheric chemical origins, but does not attribute perchlorate formation to phytochemistry. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The surface is covered by a basaltic sand that is mainly composed of plagioclases and mafic minerals (including nesosilicates and inosilicates such as olivine and pyroxene) (Peters et al., 2008;Zeng et al., 2015;Filiberto, 2017).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.1 Mineralogy of the Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters et al., 2008 source
- Partly supportedcites Zeng et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Target simulant and raw material selection section says the Martian surface is dominated by basaltic soil composed primarily of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine. The Comparison with Martian soil section says much of the surface is covered by unconsolidated soils. The paper does not establish that this material is specifically sand or that it covers the entire surface. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Filiberto, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The data from rovers show low variability in bulk chemical composition of regolith in the areas where measurements have been acquired (Zeng et al., 2015).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Zeng et al., 2015 source
The “Target simulant and raw material selection” section states that measurements by the Viking landers, Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity show relatively constant bulk chemical composition of Martian surface soils at widely spaced locations. That supports the claim’s low-variability description, although the source includes landers as well as rovers. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Radish germination rates were lower in the Lunar simulant than in the Earth control soil and Marian simulant.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wamelink et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.2 reports significantly higher radish-seed germination for seeds grown in Earth soil than for those grown in Moon soil simulant. It does not state that the Moon-simulant rate was lower than the Mars-simulant rate; it says the Mars rate was not significantly different from either. The Mars comparison is therefore not established by the text of our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The particle size distributions of Lunar and Martian simulants must be modified to create an optimal particle assemblage (Cannon et al., 2019) that promotes air permeability (to avoid anoxia stress) and geochemical and mechanical interactions to enhance element bioavailability (Beegle et al., 2007;Zeng et al., 2015;Cannon et al., 2019).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cannon et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beegle et al., 2007
- Partly supportedcites Zeng et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Production of JMSS-1 section says its grain-size distribution was adjusted by sieving, and Target simulant and raw material selection specifies particle-size, chemical, and mechanical criteria for a Martian simulant. The paper does not say that this adjustment promotes air permeability or geochemical and mechanical interactions that enhance element bioavailability; it does not address lunar simulants. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The results showed a direct interaction between plant species and Fe, Al, and Ti uptake from the Lunar substrate.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.1 Apollo-Era Plant Experiments With Lunar Samples
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Walkinshaw and Johnson, 1971 source
The Abstract reports a direct interaction between germfree plants and lunar material, and says treated plants dissolved and absorbed significant quantities of Al, Fe, and Ti from lunar fines. The Results passage also reports differences in those elements between treated and untreated seedlings across the species tested. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- It may state two separate claims as one. 57
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“although there is some evidence of a biofilm (Thomas-Keprta et al., 2014;Eigenbrode et al., 2018).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thomas-Keprta et al., 2014 source
- Disputedcites Eigenbrode et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The main text (p. 9) says the detected organic matter has no clearly identified source: biological, geological, and meteoritic origins are all possible. It does not present the material as evidence of a biofilm, and it reports no findings about lunar soil. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Space farming based on local resource exploitation (Maggi and Pallud, 2010;Ramírez et al., 2019) is a promising strategy for food production (Ming and Henninger, 1989) on extra-terrestrial habitats, as it can allow water recycling, organic waste composting, and oxygen production or CO 2 consumption (Verseux et al., 2016;Llorente et al., 2018).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maggi and Pallud, 2010 source
- Supportedcites Ramírez et al., 2019 source
The Introduction supports the part attributed to Ramírez et al. (2019): it describes soil-based agriculture using in-situ Martian resources as important for the long-term sustainability of a future Mars colony. The sentence cites other works for food production and for water, waste, and gas-cycle benefits; those are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not matchedcites Ming and Henninger, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Studies report that the Martian and Lunar simulants have a pH above 6, and have alkaline properties in some cases (Gilrain et al., 1999;Zaets et al., 2011;Wamelink et al., 2014;Caporale et al., 2020;Eichler et al., 2021), suggesting low rates of mineral weathering and cation release.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilrain et al., 1999 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zaets et al., 2011 source
- Supportedcites Wamelink et al., 2014 source
Table 2 (Materials and Methods > Regoliths; page unavailable) reports pH 7.3 for the Mars simulant and 9.6 for the lunar simulant. Both exceed 6, and the lunar simulant is alkaline. The weathering and cation-release statement follows the citations as the citing authors’ inference, rather than a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Most existing simulants were developed to address specific application fields, and although their chemical interactions or properties related to mechanical abrasion have been assessed to mitigate potential risks (Rickman et al., 2013), their agricultural properties have rarely been evaluated.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Rickman et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says simulants are tested to mitigate risks to lunar-surface equipment and compared by physical properties and bulk chemistry. It does not establish that most simulants were developed for specific applications or that chemical interactions and abrasion properties have been assessed. The statement about rarely evaluated agricultural properties follows the citation and is not clearly attributed to Rickman et al. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Three species flowered, but only two produced seeds.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Wamelink et al., 2014 source
The Conclusions state that rye, cress and field mustard flowered, and that the latter two also formed seeds. The Results likewise identify those three species as reaching the flower-or-seed stages and name field mustard and cress as the seed producers. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The biomass production was highest in the Earth control and the Martian soil simulant, but was significantly lower in the Lunar simulant.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wamelink et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 (Fruit setting and biomass) reports that total aboveground biomass was highest in the Earth control and lowest in the Moon simulant, with Moon dry biomass significantly below Earth (p=0.0318). It also states that Mars biomass was not significantly different from either Earth or Moon, so the claim is unsupported if it implies a significant Mars–Moon difference. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Only 40% of the genotypes survived and yielded crops (0.3-5.2 g tuber plant -1 ).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ramírez et al., 2019 source
The Results section states that 40% of the assessed genotypes survived under Mars-like soil conditions and had fresh tuber yields of 0.3–5.2 g per plant. This directly supports the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For extra-terrestrial farming, it is wellestablished that several simulant properties-such as an alkaline pH, a high availability of sodium, the predominance of macro-vs.micropores, and a scant water holding capacity-can influence plant growth, health, and vigor (Wamelink et al., 2014;Caporale et al., 2020).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wamelink et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) says that higher water-holding capacity may explain better growth in Mars simulant and that high pH may explain poor growth in moon simulant. The Conclusions likewise identify pH and moisture retention as possible factors. Our copy does not establish high sodium availability or a predominance of macropores over micropores as influences on plant growth. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al., 2020 source
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the Martian simulant outperformed the Lunar simulant in biomass production, as it had trace levels of ammonium nitrate and carbon and no stressors that could cause a higher pH or low water holding capacity.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wamelink et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report higher biomass on the Martian simulant, and the Discussion says its greater water-holding capacity may explain its better performance. Table 2 reports ammonium, nitrate/nitrite, carbon and a lower pH for the Martian simulant than for the lunar one. The paper does not establish that those nutrients caused the biomass difference or that the Martian simulant had no stressors; its explanation is tentative. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“For instance, the Martian surface has been found to have a high salt concentration (Ramírez et al., 2019) and high levels of perchlorates (Eichler et al., 2021).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ramírez et al., 2019 source
The citation to Ramírez et al. (2019) is attached to the high-salt-concentration claim, not the perchlorate claim. The Introduction (page not provided) states that Martian regolith is very salty; the discussion of physiological performance also describes salts as important components of Martian regolith. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eichler et al., 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Although it was a source of nutrients for lettuce, it did not supply organic matter, N, and S, and provided very scant amounts of P.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al., 2020 source
- Supportedcites Duri et al., 2020 source
The Discussion states that MMS-1 supplies nutrients including Ca, Fe, Mg and K but lacks organic matter, N, P and S. It also reports that water-soluble phosphate in pure MMS-1 was less than 4% of that in pure compost, supporting the description of its P supply as very scant. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Notably, cabbage and Brussels sprouts exhibited higher absorption of Mn.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.1 Apollo-Era Plant Experiments With Lunar Samples
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Walkinshaw and Johnson, 1971 source
The paper’s abstract says cabbage and Brussels sprouts were particularly efficient at dissolving and absorbing Mn. Its reported measurements also show higher Mn concentrations in lunar-treated seedlings than in untreated seedlings of both species. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It also lowered the pH of the alkaline simulant, enhanced its cation exchange capacity, organic C and N levels, and the availability of macro-and micronutrients.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al., 2020 source
- Partly supportedcites Duri et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports greater availability of several nutrients in compost-rich substrates and mentions the cation exchange capacity of compost. It does not report that amendment lowered the simulant’s pH or increased the substrate’s cation exchange capacity, organic C, or N levels; nor does it establish increased availability of micronutrients as a group. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Plants produce O 2 and fix CO 2 , serve as food for space crews, have a role in water recycling (Maggi and Pallud, 2010;Llorente et al., 2018), and are actively involved in soil structure formation.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maggi and Pallud, 2010 source
- Supportedcites Llorente et al., 2018 source
Section 1 states that plants could supply oxygen, fix carbon dioxide, recycle water, and provide food at extraterrestrial outposts. The citation is attached to the water-recycling clause; the subsequent soil-structure claim is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The red Salanova ® lettuce grown in the 30:70 mixture showed the best crop performance, photosynthetic activity, intrinsic water use efficiency, and quality traits (mineral, carotenoid, and phenolic contents).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al., 2020 source
- Partly supportedcites Duri et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Results §2.1 reports that red Salanova in the 30:70 simulant:compost mixture had the highest fresh yield, net CO₂ assimilation and intrinsic water-use efficiency. But the claim that this mixture also had the best mineral, carotenoid and phenolic contents overstates the findings: Results §2.3 places the highest lutein content in the 70:30 mixture, while Results §§2.2 and 2.4 show that mineral and phenolic contents varied by nutrient or compound, with some highest in 100% compost. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SiO 2 is the principal constituent in all the simulants.SiO 2 levels are consistently ∼45% in the Lunar simulants, and ∼41% in the Martian ones.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, Lunar Highland simulants contain higher levels of anorthite plagioclases than Lunar Mare simulants (59 vs. 34%, respectively).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.1 Mineralogy of the Lunar and Martian Simulants
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simulants lack key nutrients for plants such as N, which is frequently absent in minerals and occurs in biomolecules.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Simulants also contain non-negligible amounts of sodium (Lunar: 2.8% of Na 2 O; Martian: 2.4% from Na-plagioclases) and potentially toxic elements (e.g., Cr as Cr 2 O 3 ), which may induce salt or other abiotic stresses in rhizosphere-competent microorganisms and plants (Caporale et al., 2020).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al., 2020 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their analysis concluded that the Lunar simulant was the worst in terms of water retention capacity, likely because of its large pore space (0.52 cm 3 cm -3 ) and particle size (0.25-1.0 mm).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chamindu Deepagoda et al. (2014) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, compared to Lunar Highland simulants, Lunar Mare simulants are more enriched with mafic minerals (7 vs. 35%, respectively) and oxides (0.2 vs. 2.9%, respectively).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.1 Mineralogy of the Lunar and Martian Simulants
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lunar and Martian simulants also contain significant levels of other nutrients essential for plant growth.These include potassium (average, 0.9%; 0.7% of K 2 O), phosphorus (0.3%; 0.3% of P 2 O 5 ), sulfur (0.1%; 4.4% of SO 3 ), and manganese (0.1%; 0.1% of MnO), which are derived from K-feldspars, phosphates, sulfates, and Mn oxides, respectively (Figure 1).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In accordance with the mineralogy of the Lunar dust regolith, the Lunar Dust simulant is enriched by glass and opaque than the Lunar Mare and Lunar Highland simulants (53 vs. 25% and 33%, respectively), and exhibits lower levels of nesosilicates, inosilicates, and tectosilicates (Figure 1; Supplementary Table S2).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.1 Mineralogy of the Lunar and Martian Simulants
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The only data regarding EC in Martian simulants indicate low values of 0.2-0.3dS m -1 (Gilrain et al., 1999;Caporale et al., 2020), suggesting no adverse effect of salinity on plant growth.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The simulants also contain inorganic carbon in the form of carbonates, and their levels are higher in Martian simulants than in Lunar ones.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, Lunar simulants show higher Al 2 O 3 and CaO levels than Martian simulants, whereas the opposite is true for Fe (FeO and Fe 2 O 3 ) and MgO (Figure 2).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This enhanced the microbial metabolism, promoted faster decomposition of DOC, and much higher emission of NO, N 2 O, N 2 , and CO 2 .”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maggi and Pallud (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Based on its hydraulic properties, the 70:30 mixture was best substrate, as the percentage increase in large pores (diameter, 50-120 μm) was more significant in this mixture than in the 30:70 one.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al. (2020) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Water held in macropores exceeding 120 μm in diameter was not directly beneficial for root water uptake in lettuce (the plant considered in the study), and even caused root asphyxia.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caporale et al. (2020) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Peters et al. (2008) reported that the Martian regolith is classified as a fine-grained and cohesionless rocky soil that is mixed with dust due to planet storms.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.1 Mineralogy of the Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters et al. (2008) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these regolith simulants, although not sterile, may play an essential role in improving our understanding of the environmental phenomena on the Moon and Mars.They may also help solve potential problems related to the exploitation of Lunar and Martian regolith as plant growth substrates.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Potential future challenges include a lack of adequate knowledge about the extra-terrestrial environment and the development of best agronomic practices for the first space colony.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the lack of a standardized method for evaluating regolith efficacy, many published studies claiming to have assessed regolith for plant growth have used microbiome-contaminated regolith, which is in effect a soil.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main critical aspects of space agriculture are presumed to be related to nutrient availability, air and fluid movements in different gravitational conditions, and potentially toxic elements in the substrates.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Naturally, plant growth, morphology, and physiology on the Moon or other planets are expected to be greatly affected by the sterile and nutrient-poor nature of extra-terrestrial soil and the different gravitational and climatic conditions.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Potentially toxic elements such as Al and Cr usually precipitate and are poorly available in alkaline environments (Brautigan et al., 2012); therefore, their presence in non-negligible amounts should not hinder plant growth in simulants.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brautigan et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, there is only a minimal quantity of Lunar material on Earth that is closely guarded, and no samples have been brought back from Mars to date.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reduced gravity (e.g., in a spacecraft in orbit) causes changes in crucial hydrological variables and alters some fundamental characteristics of water flow and liquid distribution inside a porous medium.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perchlorates can be taken up by plants and make their edible parts unsafe to eat.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combination of BLSS and ISRU may allow sustainable food production on Moon and Mars.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the addition of sustainable amounts of organic amendments (e.g., compost or manure) or mineral fertilizers to Lunar and Martian simulants may enhance the bioavailability of essential nutrients and provide missing vital nutrients such as N and organic C.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.2 Bulk Chemistry and Physicochemical Properties
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of rigorous documentation by producers of simulants, this shows the need for an adequate characterization of commercial simulants prior to the designing and planning of any scientific experiments.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the Martian regolith sometimes contains toxic perchlorates.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, selected pioneer plants can be grown initially (Kozyrovska et al., 2006) to improve the root zone during cultivation and provide plant residues for humification at the end of their life cycle.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kozyrovska et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The organic waste produced by BLSS crews can help recover compounds and allow their use as fertilizers or compost to support plant growth.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In situ recycled organic matter can be produced in sufficient quantity and quality in BLSS to amend regolith.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, these simulants generally exhibit numerous features harmful for plant health, such as an alkaline pH, high availability of Na, low cohesion of mineral components, the predominance of macro-vs.micropores, and low water holding capacity.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, they lack organic matter and key macronutrients such as N, P, and S.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“To date, Lunar and Martian simulants have been primarily studied for applications other than agronomy (de Vera et al., 2004;Gertsch et al., 2008;Kölbl et al., 2017;Karl et al., 2018), although they have potential use as a substrate for crop growth (Mortley et al., 2000).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many studies, nutrient deficiency in simulants was overcome by fertigation with nutrient-rich solutions (e.g., Hoagland).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although reduced gravity can influence gas and fluid movement, it does not necessarily lead to better rhizospheric conditions.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At the end of the growth cycle, the authors demonstrated that the first-generation plant residues could serve as a supply of green manure for humification and as a potential nutrient source.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kozyrovska et al., 2006 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, the chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations were higher in treated plants, with chlorophyll a being the major pigment present (Weete and Walkinshaw, 1972).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.1 Apollo-Era Plant Experiments With Lunar Samples
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Weete and Walkinshaw, 1972
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, with the addition of nutrients, both plant species grew on JSC-Mars-1A and MMS, but did not grow on MGS-1.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eichler et al., 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Plants grown in compost:simulant ratios of 1:0, 3:1, and 1:1 showed yields that were greater than those in the 1:3 and 0:1 ratios, and control plants irrigated with only water produced similar trends.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilrain et al., 1999 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lunar and Martian soils lack organic matter and biotic activity (Seiferlin et al., 2008), although there is some evidence of a biofilm (Thomas-Keprta et al., 2014;Eigenbrode et al., 2018).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Seiferlin et al., 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The authors noted the absence of disease agents in the plants tested under experimental conditions, and concluded that the Lunar material could potentially support the growth of a wide range of plant species.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.1 Apollo-Era Plant Experiments With Lunar Samples
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Walkinshaw et al., 1970 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“As reported in Section 2.2, plants need macro and micronutrients for optimal growth, and these can be found in both inorganic and organic forms in soil on Earth (Hopkins and Huner, 2008;Fageria, 2009).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hopkins and Huner, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fageria, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Therefore, the authors concluded that both simulants showed potential for use as a substrate for crop production.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The authors concluded that cultivation on Mars would require less water for irrigation and lower external nutrient supply than on Earth.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 2.3 Physical and Hydrological Properties
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Maggi and Pallud (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature review showed that pure regolith simulants may be suitable media for plant growth (at least for limited periods) and function as a source of essential nutrients such as K, Ca, Mg, and Fe.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Lunar and Martian regolith simulants are adequate analogues for actual Lunar and Martian regolith in plant growth studies.
In the paper
“The first solution involves the use of a stable organic amendment, not only as a supply of organic carbon, but also to improve the physical features of regolith (Gilrain et al., 1999).”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilrain et al., 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, Lunar and Martian soils (and, therefore, regolith simulant-based substrates) are potentially deficient in all macro-and micronutrients, which are derived exclusively (N), mostly (P, S), or partly (K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn, B, Cl, and Ni) from the degradation of organic components.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Lunar and Martian regolith simulants are adequate analogues for actual Lunar and Martian regolith in plant growth studies.
In the paper
“The authors concluded that the compost mainly promoted plant growth by improving the physical features of the regolith that regulate water and/or nutrient availability.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilrain et al., 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In these tests, the simulants mainly provided mechanical anchorage for the plant roots, and did not cause any adverse or toxic effects in the plants.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (Hopkins and Huner, 2008), and organic matter is the primary source of both N and P.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3 KEY STUDIES ON PLANT CULTIVATION ON REGOLITH SIMULANTS: CRITICAL ASPECTS OF -AND SOLUTIONS FOR -GROWING CROPS ON OTHER PLANETS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hopkins and Huner, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Calcium perchlorate-enriched simulants were unable to sustain plant growth, even with nutrient supply.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 3.2 Plant Growth Experiments on Lunar and Martian Simulants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eichler et al., 2021 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this agronomic technique is not feasible and sustainable in space agriculture, as the nutritional resources must be carried from the Earth and cannot be produced in BLSS.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this may be feasible for microgreens or salad crops, it is more challenging for other candidate species such as potato (a source of carbohydrates) and soybean (a source of proteins), which require more nutrients and resources to produce a sufficiently edible yield than do salad crops.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In extra-terrestrial soil, water dynamics would regulate the extent of mineral weathering and the rate of organic matter decomposition, thus greatly affecting the biogeochemistry and bioavailability of nutrients and plant growth.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sustainable scenarios of space farming, regolith-based substrates are required to sustain plant growth throughout the plant life cycle, including the complete seed maturation needed for reproduction.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Providing ecosystem services by using a regolith-based substrate might be the key to a fruitful and sustainable Lunar or Martian BLSS.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, further steps-such as water rinses, phytoremediation, volatilization, and chemical reduction by using perchlorate-reducing bacteria-are necessary to make Mars regolith a viable growing substrate.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of-and interactions with-biota (including pathogens, cyanobacteria, plant growth-promoting bacteria, beneficial symbiotic fungi, and worms) and biostimulants will add further complexity to life support systems with extraterrestrial soils.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This can lower the substrate pH, increase mineral weathering rates, enhance nutrient release/availability, promote the aggregation of particles of different sizes (to form a more efficient porous system), and overall contribute to soil improvement.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The occurrence of perchlorates in the Mars regolith provides a significant challenge to its use as an agricultural substrate.”
§ The Potential for Lunar and Martian Regolith Simulants to Sustain Plant Growth: A Multidisciplinary Overview > 4 CONCLUSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Unexplored areas of the Lunar and Martian surfaces may exhibit different mineralogy and chemical compositions.
“Nevertheless, we need to assume that the unexplored areas of the Lunar and Martian surfaces may exhibit different mineralogy and chemical compositions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Lunar and Martian regolith simulants are adequate analogues for actual Lunar and Martian regolith in plant growth studies.
“Thus, Lunar and Martian soils (and, therefore, regolith simulant-based substrates) are potentially deficient in all macro-and micronutrients, which are derived exclusively (N), mostly (P, S), or partly (K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn, B, Cl, and Ni) from the degradation of organic components.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Findings from terrestrial simulant experiments can be extrapolated to off-world BLSS conditions.
“Thus, it is essential to evaluate whether these soil simulants can be exploited to support future colonies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In situ recycled organic matter can be produced in sufficient quantity and quality in BLSS to amend regolith.
“The organic waste produced by BLSS crews can help recover compounds and allow their use as fertilizers or compost to support plant growth.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The space environment (e.g., microgravity, radiation) will not fundamentally alter the physicochemical and biological processes assumed from Earth-based experiments.
“The use of this amendment and soil tillage can also help mitigate the effects of microgravity on water leaching (Maggi and Pallud, 2010).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Unlike terrestrial soil, it lacks a natural biome and is deficient in essential macronutrients such as nitrogen, as well as key micronutrients including copper, zinc, and boron (Eichler et al., 2021;Duri et al., 2022).”
From Spirulina supported plant growth in regolith simulants and elevated levels of CO2 (2025) · cites this paper as Duri et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to Plant Physiology
Curtis, O. F., & Clark, D. G. (1932) · Nature · doi:10.1038/129887b0 · Cited by 920
A Habitable Fluvio-Lacustrine Environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars
Grotzinger, J. P., Sumner, D. Y., Kah, L. C., Stack, K., Gupta, S., Edgar, L., Rubin, D., Lewis, K., Schieber, J., Mangold, N., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1242777 · Cited by 901
The Use of Nutrients in Crop Plants
Fageria, N. K. (2016) · doi:10.1201/9781420075113 · Cited by 680
Organic matter preserved in 3-billion-year-old mudstones at Gale crater, Mars
Eigenbrode, J. L., Summons, R. E., Steele, A., Freissinet, C., Millan, M., Navarro-González, R., Sutter, B., McAdam, A. C., Franz, H. B., Glavin, D. P., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aas9185 · Cited by 558
The use of nutrients in crop plants
Sale, P. W. G. (2009) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcp227 · Cited by 348
Rikken, G. B., Kroon, A. G. M., & van Ginkel, C. G. (1996) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s002530050707 · Cited by 331
McFee, W. W., & VanScoyoc, G. E. (1975) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1975.03615995003900050003x · Cited by 323
Redox stratification of an ancient lake in Gale crater, Mars
Hurowitz, J. A., Grotzinger, J. P., Fischer, W. W., McLennan, S. M., Milliken, R. E., Stein, N., Vasavada, A. R., Blake, D. F., Dehouck, E., Eigenbrode, J. L., et al. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aah6849 · Cited by 292
Mojave Mars Simulant-Characterization of a New Geologic Mars Analog
Peters, G. H., Abbey, W., Bearman, G. H., Mungas, G. S., Smith, J. A., Anderson, R. C., Douglas, S., & Beegle, L. W. (2008) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.05.004 · Cited by 253
Zheng, Y., Wang, S., Ouyang, Z., Zou, Y., Liu, J., Li, C., Li, X., & Feng, J. (2009) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2008.07.006 · Cited by 248
Mars global simulant MGS-1: A Rocknest-based open standard for basaltic martian regolith simulants
Cannon, K. M., Britt, D. T., Smith, T. M., Fritsche, R. F., & Batcheldor, D. (2019) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.019 · Cited by 243
Stern, J. C., Sutter, B., Freissinet, C., Navarro-González, R., McKay, C. P., Archer, P. D., Buch, A., Brunner, A. E., Coll, P., Eigenbrode, J. L., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1420932112 · Cited by 225
(1994) · Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space IV · Cited by 202
Can Plants Grow on Mars and the Moon: A Growth Experiment on Mars and Moon Soil Simulants
Wamelink, G. W. W., Frissel, J. Y., Krijnen, W. H. J., Verwoert, M. R., & Goedhart, P. W. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103138 · Cited by 201
Sustainable life support on Mars – the potential roles of cyanobacteria
Verseux, C., Baqué, M., Lehto, K., de Vera, J.-P. P., Rothschild, L. J., & Billi, D. (2016) · International Journal of Astrobiology · doi:10.1017/s147355041500021x · Cited by 194
Properties of Lunar Soil Simulant Manufactured in Japan
Kanamori, H., Udagawa, S., Yoshida, T., Matsumoto, S., & Takagi, K. (1998) · doi:10.1061/40339(206)53 · Cited by 192
Soil-like deposits observed by Sojourner, the Pathfinder rover
Moore, H. J., Bickler, D. B., Crisp, J. A., Eisen, H. J., Gensler, J. A., Haldemann, A. F. C., Matijevic, J. R., Reid, L. K., & Pavlics, F. (1999) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets · doi:10.1029/1998je900005 · Cited by 166
Perchlorate on Mars: a chemical hazard and a resource for humans
Davila, A. F., Willson, D., Coates, J. D., & McKay, C. P. (2013) · International Journal of Astrobiology · doi:10.1017/s1473550413000189 · Cited by 153
Towards synthetic biological approaches to resource utilization on space missions
Menezes, A. A., Cumbers, J., Hogan, J. A., & Arkin, A. P. (2015) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0715 · Cited by 147
Moore, H. J., & Jakosky, B. M. (1989) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/0019-1035(89)90132-2 · Cited by 146
Geochemical Reservoirs and Timing of Sulfur Cycling on Mars
Gaillard, F., Michalski, J. R., Berger, G., McLennan, S. M., & Scaillet, B. (2012) · Space Science Reviews · doi:10.1007/s11214-012-9947-4 · Cited by 141
Mixing relationships in the Martian regolith and the composition of globally homogeneous dust
McSWEEN, H. Y., Jr., & Keil, K. (2000) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/s0016-7037(99)00401-9 · Cited by 132
Lunar Base Agriculture: Soils for Plant Growth
(1989) · ASSA, CSSA and SSSA · doi:10.2134/1989.lunarbaseagriculture · Cited by 111
de Vera, J.-P., Horneck, G., Rettberg, P., & Ott, S. (2004) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2003.10.035 · Cited by 103
Geochemistry of Martian basalts with constraints on magma genesis
Filiberto, J. (2017) · Chemical Geology · doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2017.06.009 · Cited by 95
The effects of space weathering on Apollo 17 mare soils: Petrographie and chemical characterization
Taylor, L. A., Pieters, C. M., Keller, L. P., Morris, R. V., McKay, D. S., Patchen, A. D., & Wentworth, S. J. (2001) · Meteoritics and Planetary Science · doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2001.tb01871.x · Cited by 91
Challenging the agricultural viability of martian regolith simulants
Eichler, A., Hadland, N., Pickett, D., Masaitis, D., Handy, D., Perez, A., Batcheldor, D., Wheeler, B., & Palmer, A. (2021) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114022 · Cited by 89
NAO-1: Lunar Highland Soil Simulant Developed in China
Li, Y., Liu, J., & Yue, Z. (2008) · Journal of Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(2009)22:1(53 · Cited by 86
Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage
Sibille, L., Schlagheck, R. A., French, R. A., & Carpenter, P. (2006) · NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) · Cited by 80
Geotechnical Properties of BP-1 Lunar Regolith Simulant
Suescun-Florez, E., Roslyakov, S., Iskander, M. G., & Baamer, M. (2014) · Journal of Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000462 · Cited by 78
Simulating Martian Regolith in the Laboratory
Seiferlin, K., Ehrenfreund, P., Garry, J., Gunderson, K., Hütter, E., Kargl, G., Maturilli, A., & Merrison, J. P. (2008) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/j.pss.2008.09.017 · Cited by 77
JMSS-1: a new Martian soil simulant
Zeng, X., Li, X., Wang, S., Li, S., Spring, N., Tang, H., Li, Y., & Feng, J. (2015) · Earth, Planets and Space · doi:10.1186/s40623-015-0248-5 · Cited by 75
Mind the gap: A classification system for integrating the subsolum into soil surveys
Juilleret, J., Dondeyne, S., Vancampenhout, K., Deckers, J., & Hissler, C. (2015) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.031 · Cited by 75
Jones, S. B., & Or, D. (1999) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/1998wr900091 · Cited by 71
The Shawmere anorthosite and OB-1 as lunar highland regolith simulants
Battler, M. M., & SPRAY, J. G. (2009) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/j.pss.2009.09.003 · Cited by 71
Lunar dust and lunar simulant activation and monitoring
Wallace, W. T., Taylor, L. A., Liu, Y., Cooper, B. L., McKay, D. S., Chen, B., & Jeevarajan, A. S. (2009) · Meteoritics and Planetary Science · doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.tb00781.x · Cited by 71
Space biology : studies at orbital stations
Nechitailo, G. S., Mashinsky, A. L., & Lyubimov, N. (1993) · Cited by 68
Geotechnical Properties of NT-LHT-2M Lunar Highland Simulant
Zeng, X., He, C., & Wilkinson, A. (2010) · Journal of Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000026 · Cited by 68
Direct Formation of Structural Components Using a Martian Soil Simulant
Chow, B. J., Chen, T., Zhong, Y., & Qiao, Y. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01157-w · Cited by 65
Crop growth and viability of seeds on Mars and Moon soil simulants
Wamelink, G. W. W., Frissel, J. Y., Krijnen, W. H. J., & Verwoert, M. R. (2019) · Open Agriculture · doi:10.1515/opag-2019-0051 · Cited by 62
Aluminium Speciation and Phytotoxicity in Alkaline Soils
Brautigan, D. J., Rengasamy, P., & Chittleborough, D. J. (2012) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-012-1232-5 · Cited by 61
Adamo, P., Agrelli, D., & Zampella, M. (2018) · Environmental Geochemistry: Site Characterization, Data Analysis and Case Histories · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-63763-5.00010-0 · Cited by 55
Self-citationFackrell, L. E., Schroeder, P. A., Thompson, A., Stockstill-Cahill, K., & Hibbitts, C. A. (2021) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114055 · Cited by 54
The Multiplanetary Future of Plant Synthetic Biology
Llorente, B., Williams, T. C., & Goold, H. D. (2018) · Genes · doi:10.3390/genes9070348 · Cited by 52
Caporale, A. G., Vingiani, S., Palladino, M., El-Nakhel, C., Duri, L. G., Pannico, A., Rouphael, Y., De Pascale, S., & Adamo, P. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137543 · Cited by 51
Self-citationDuri, L. G., El-Nakhel, C., Caporale, A. G., Ciriello, M., Graziani, G., Pannico, A., Palladino, M., Ritieni, A., De Pascale, S., Vingiani, S., et al. (2020) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants9050628 · Cited by 47
Self-citationTang, H., Li, X., Sensen, Z., Wang, S., Liu, J., Li, S., Li, Y., & Wu, Y. (2016) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2016.11.023 · Cited by 46
McCollom, T. M., Robbins, M., Moskowitz, B., Berquó, T. S., Jöns, N., & Hynek, B. M. (2013) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets · doi:10.1002/jgre.20044 · Cited by 45
Growing pioneer Plants for a Lunar Base
Kozyrovska, N. O., Lutvynenko, T. L., Korniichuk, O. S., Kovalchuk, M. V., Voznyuk, T. M., Kononuchenko, O., Zaetz, I., Rogutskyy, I. S., Mytrokhyn, O. V., Mashkovska, S. P., et al. (2006) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.005 · Cited by 44
Perchlorate and Agriculture on Mars
Oze, C., Beisel, J., Dabsys, E., Dall, J., North, G., Scott, A., Lopez, A. M., Holmes, R., & Fendorf, S. (2021) · Soil Systems · doi:10.3390/soilsystems5030037 · Cited by 44
Use of lunar regolith as a substrate for plant growth
Ming, D. W., & Henninger, D. L. (1994) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/0273-1177(94)90333-6 · Cited by 43
Disambiguating the soils of Mars
Certini, G., Karunatillake, S., Zhao, Y., Meslin, P., Cousin, A., Hood, D. R., & Scalenghe, R. (2020) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/j.pss.2020.104922 · Cited by 42
The role of aqueous alteration in the formation of martian soils
Bandfield, J. L., Rogers, A. D., & Edwards, C. S. (2010) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.08.028 · Cited by 38
Maggi, F., & Pallud, C. (2010) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2010.07.012 · Cited by 37
Results of Apollo 11 and 12 Quarantine Studies on Plants
Walkinshaw, C. H., Sweet, H. C., Venketeswaran, S., & Horne, W. H. (1970) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1295365 · Cited by 36
Organic Matter on the Earth's Moon
Thomas-Keprta, K. L., Clemett, S. J., Messenger, S., Ross, D. K., Le, L., Rahman, Z., McKay, D. S., Gibson, E. K., Gonzalez, C., & Peabody, W. (2014) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2014.02.047 · Cited by 36
Soil Test Apparatus for Lunar Surfaces
Rahmatian, L. A., & Metzger, P. T. (2010) · ASCE International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments (Earth and Space) · doi:10.1061/41096(366)25 · Cited by 34
Primm, K. M., Gough, R. V., Wong, J., Valentín, E. G. R., Martínez, G., Hogancamp, J. V., Archer, P. D., Ming, D. W., & Tolbert, M. A. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research Planets · doi:10.1029/2018je005540 · Cited by 33
Clark, J. V., Archer, P. D., Gruener, J. E., Ming, D. W., Tu, V. M., Niles, P. B., & Mertzman, S. A. (2020) · Icarus · doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113936 · Cited by 33
Lunar Plant Biology—A Review of the Apollo Era
Ferl, R. J., & Paul, A.-L. (2010) · Astrobiology · doi:10.1089/ast.2009.0417 · Cited by 30
Bioaugmentation in Growing Plants for Lunar Bases
Zaets, I., Burlak, O., Rogutskyy, I., Vasilenko, A., Mytrokhyn, O., Lukashov, D., Foing, B., & Kozyrovska, N. (2011) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2010.11.014 · Cited by 30
Karl, D., Kamutzki, F., Zocca, A., Goerke, O., Guenster, J., & Gurlo, A. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204025 · Cited by 30
(2007) · Lunar and Planetary Science Conference · Cited by 28
Preliminary study of greenhouse grown Swiss chard in mixtures of Compost and Mars Regolith Simulant
Gilrain, M. R., Hogan, J. A., Cowan, R. M., Finstein, M. S., & Logendra, L. S. (1999) · SAE Technical Paper Series · doi:10.4271/1999-01-2021 · Cited by 28
Bates, S., Gushin, V., Bingham, G., Vinokhodova, A., Marquit, J., & Sychev, V. (2009) · Habitation · doi:10.3727/154296610x12686999887201 · Cited by 26
Ramírez, D. A., Kreuze, J., Amoros, W., Valdivia-Silva, J. E., Ranck, J., Garcia, S., Salas, E., & Yactayo, W. (2019) · International Journal of Astrobiology · doi:10.1017/s1473550417000453 · Cited by 26
Kölbl, D., Pignitter, M., Somoza, V., Schimak, M. P., Štrbák, O., Blazevic, A., & Milojević, T. (2017) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.01918 · Cited by 25
Reaction Mechanism of Various Types of Lunar Soil Simulants by Hydrogen Reduction
Sueyoshi, K., Watanabe, T., Nakano, Y., Kanamori, H., Aoki, S., Miyahara, A., & Matsui, K. (2008) · ASCE International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments (Earth and Space) · doi:10.1061/40988(323)134 · Cited by 24
A view of extraterrestrial soils
Certini, G., Scalenghe, R., & Amundson, R. (2009) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01173.x · Cited by 24
Functional Comparison of Lunar Regoliths and Their Simulants
Rickman, D., Edmunson, J., & McLemore, C. (2013) · Journal of Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000223 · Cited by 22
(2008) · Cited by 21
Developing a new controllable lunar dust simulant: BHLD20
Sun, H., Yi, M., Shen, Z., Zhang, X., & Ma, S. (2017) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.04.010 · Cited by 21
Growth of sweetpotato in lunar and mars simulants
Mortley, D. G., Aglan, H. A., Bonsi, C. K., & Hill, W. A. (2000) · SAE Technical Paper Series · doi:10.4271/2000-01-2289 · Cited by 20
SMART-1 technology, scientific results and heritage for future space missions
Foing, B. H., Racca, G. D., Marini, A., Koschny, D., Frew, D., Grieger, B., Camino, O., Josset, J. L., & Grande, M. (2017) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.09.002 · Cited by 20
Y‐Mars: An Astrobiological Analogue of Martian Mudstone
Stevens, A., Steer, E. D., McDonald, A., Amador, E. S., & Cockell, C. S. (2018) · Earth and Space Science · doi:10.1002/2017ea000318 · Cited by 20
Analysis of Vegetable Seedlings Grown in Contact with Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Fines1
Walkinshaw, C. H., & Johnson, P. H. (1971) · HortScience · doi:10.21273/hortsci.6.6.532 · Cited by 19
Lunar and Planetary Excavation Prototype Development and Testing at the Colorado School of Mines
van Susante, P. J., & Dreyer, C. (2010) · ASCE International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments (Earth and Space) · doi:10.1061/41096(366)109 · Cited by 17
Apollo 12 lunar material: effects on plant pigments
Weete, J. D., & Walkinshaw, C. H. (1972) · Canadian Journal of Botany · doi:10.1139/b72-015 · Cited by 15
Taylor, S. R. (2007) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012088589-3/50016-5 · Cited by 15
Chamindu Deepagoda, T. K. K., Jones, S. B., Tuller, M., de Jonge, L. W., Kawamoto, K., Komatsu, T., & Moldrup, P. (2014) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2014.04.018 · Cited by 12
Physical sedimentology experiments with sulfuric acid solutions: Implications for Mars?
Benison, K. C., LaClair, D., & Walker, J. (2008) · Earth and Planetary Science Letters · doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.036 · Cited by 12
Hoson, T., Kamisaka, S., Wakabayashi, K., Soga, K., Tabuchi, A., Tokumoto, H., Okamura, K., Nakamura, Y., Mori, R., Tanimoto, E., et al. (2000) · Biological Sciences in Space · doi:10.2187/bss.14.75 · Cited by 11
Mineralogically Accurate Simulants for Lunar ISRU, and Strategic Regolith Processing
Cannon, K. M., & Britt, D. T. (2019) · Cited by 8
Apollo 12 Lunar Material: Effects on Lipid Levels of Tobacco Tissue Cultures
Weete, J. D., Walkinshaw, C. H., & Laseter, J. L. (1972) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.175.4022.623 · Cited by 7
Malla, R. B., Binienda, W. K., & Maji, A. K. (2006) · doi:10.1061/9780784408308 · Cited by 7
Recent advances in the development of the SVET space greenhouse equipment
Ivanova, T. N., Sapunova, S., Kostov, P., & Ilieva, I. (2006) · International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies · doi:10.1109/rast.2005.1512662 · Cited by 6
Lunar Regolith Simulant CUG-1A
He, X., Xiao, L., Huang, J., Wan, C. H., Wu, T., Gao, R., Yan, S., & He, Q. (2010) · LPI · Cited by 5
Preliminary Geological Findings on the BP-1 Simulant
Stoeser, D. B., Wilson, S., & Rickman, D. L. (2010) · NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) · Cited by 5
(2018) · Lunar and Planetary Science Conference · Cited by 4
Utilization of On-Site Resources for Regenerative Life Support Systems at Lunar and Martian Outposts
Ming, D. W., Golden, D. C., & Henninger, D. L. (1993) · SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · doi:10.4271/932091 · Cited by 2
Sweetpotato Growth Using a Microporous Tube System with Lunar Simulant Medium
Aglan, H., Mortley, D., Trotman, A., Loretan, P., & Hill, W. (1998) · SAE Technical Paper Series · doi:10.4271/981806 · Cited by 2
Highlights of Science and Exploration Activities at the SSERVI CLASS Node
Cannon, K. C., & Britt, D. T. (2019) · EPSC · Cited by 1
3D Shape Characterization and Image-Based DEM Simulation of the Lunar Soil Simulant FJS-1
Matsushima, T., Katagiri, J., Uesugi, K., Tsuchiyama, A., & Nakano, T. (2009) · Journal of Aerospace Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(2009)22:1(15
Hopkins, B. D. (2008) · The Making of Modern Afghanistan · doi:10.1057/9780230228764_1
Manufactured Soils for Plant Growth at a Lunar Base
Ming, D. W. (1989) · ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Books · doi:10.2134/1989.lunarbaseagriculture.c7
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Heiken, 1991, Lunar Sourcebook
- Lee, 2017, In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Construction Technology for Moon and Mars
- Marquit, 2008, Testing Crew Responses to Varied Higher Plant Presentations in the MARS-500 Day Mission Simulation
- 2018, Pursuant to Section 432(b) of the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, 115-10
- 2014, Keys to Soil Taxonomy
- Stoeser, Design and Specifications for the highland Regolith Prototype Simulants NU-LHT-1m and-2M
- Zubrin, 2011, Case for mars
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward sustainable space exploration: a roadmap for harnessing the power of microorganisms
Santomartino, R., Averesch, N. J. H., Bhuiyan, M., Cockell, C. S., Colangelo-Lillis, J. R., Gumulya, Y., Lehner, B., Lopez-Ayala, I., McMahon, S., Mohanty, A., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37070-2 · Cited by 140
Caporale, A. G., Palladino, M., Pascale, S. D., Duri, L. G., Rouphael, Y., & Adamo, P. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116455 · Cited by 42
Self-citationWu, C., Yu, Z., Shao, R., & Li, J. (2024) · Engineering Structures · doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.118723 · Cited by 41
Caporale, A. G., Amato, M., Duri, L. G., Bochicchio, R., De Pascale, S., Simeone, G. D. R., Palladino, M., Pannico, A., Rao, M. A., Rouphael, Y., et al. (2022) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants11233345 · Cited by 36
Self-citationThe physiology of plants in the context of space exploration
Maffei, M. E., Balestrini, R., Costantino, P., Lanfranco, L., Morgante, M., Battistelli, A., & Bianco, M. D. (2024) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-06989-7 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Duri, L. G., Caporale, A. G., Rouphael, Y., Vingiani, S., Palladino, M., De Pascale, S., & Adamo, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Naples Federico II (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Caporale, Antonio Giandonato
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-01-04
- Volume
- 8
- ISSN
- 2296-987X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4205652835
- Semantic Scholar
- 7d2d9749483328ab8038b4e63ca5d76cca6d868a
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8
- FWCI
- 7.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Agenzia Spaziale Italiana
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Planetary Science and Exploration
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Space Exploration and Technology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Plant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
- Keywords
- lunar regolith simulant, Martian regolith simulant, bioregenerative life support, in-situ resource utilization, plant growth media, space agriculture, reduced gravity, mineralogical composition
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
