The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sensitivity of total, light fraction and mineralizable organic matter to management practices in a Lethbridge soil
Open accessAbstract
Crop management influences the quantity and quality of organic matter in agricultural soils. A crop rotation study established at Lethbridge, Alberta in 1951 was sampled in September 1992 to determine the effect of crop management on total, light fraction and mineralizable (10-wk) organic matter contents. Spring wheat was the dominant cropping system; treatments examined include fallow frequency, forage hay production in rotation, manure amendment, N fertilizer application, and native grass. The two latter treatments were introduced in 1985. Total and light fraction organic matter did not vary among phases of the rotation whereas mineralized C tended to be lowest during and shortly after a fallow phase. When averaged across rotation phases, total, light fraction, and mineralized organic matter were enhanced by reduced fallow frequency, manure additons, hay production and native grass. Highest concentrations of total and labile organic concentrations in the 0- to 7.5-cm soil depth were generally found in the continuously-cropped wheat and native grass treatments. Hay production significantly increased soil organic matter in the 15- to 30-cm soil depth. Nitrogen fertilization did not increase soil organic matter in this study, likely because of minimal yield response over the treatment period. Sensitivity of the various indicators to treatment [(highest–lowest)/lowest] was 0.2 for total, 2.5 for light fraction, and 1.5 for mineralized soil organic C. Light fraction organic matter was the most robust indicator of management-induced effects on soil organic matter. Key words: Labile organic matter, fallow frequency, forage hay production, manure, native grass
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils
Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., & Paustian, K. (2002) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1016125726789 · Cited by 4,633
Soil carbon sequestration and land‐use change: processes and potential
Post, W. M., & Kwon, K. C. (2000) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x · Cited by 2,602
Haynes, R. J. (2005) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(04)85005-3 · Cited by 1,010
Management options for reducing CO2 emissions from agricultural soils
Paustian, K., Six, J., Elliott, E. T., & Hunt, H. W. (2000) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1023/a:1006271331703 · Cited by 846
Global meta-analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields
Oldfield, E. E., Bradford, M. A., & Wood, S. A. (2019) · SOIL · doi:10.5194/soil-5-15-2019 · Cited by 802
Metadata
- Authors
- Bremer, E., Janzen, H. H., & Johnston, A. M.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Soil Science
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 1994-05-01
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-138
- ISSN
- 0008-4271 (ISSN-L)
- 1918-1841
- OpenAlex
- W2095562790
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sensitivity of total, light fraction and mineralizable organic matter to management practices in a Lethbridge soil. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4141/cjss94-020
- The paper
- Bremer, E., Janzen, H. H., & Johnston, A. M. (1994). Sensitivity of total, light fraction and mineralizable organic matter to management practices in a Lethbridge soil. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss94-020
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.