Cited by 43Soil Geostatistics and MappingSoil and Unsaturated FlowSoil Management and Crop Yield

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pedotransfer functions for Irish soils – estimation of bulk density ( ρ b ) per horizon type

Open access
Reidy, B., Simo, I., Sills, P., Creamer, R. E.·2016·SOIL

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Soil bulk density is a key property in defining soil characteristics. It describes the packing structure of the soil and is also essential for the measurement of soil carbon stock and nutrient assessment. In many older surveys this property was neglected and in many modern surveys this property is omitted due to cost both in laboratory and labour and in cases where the core method cannot be applied. To overcome these oversights pedotransfer functions are applied using other known soil properties to estimate bulk density. Pedotransfer functions have been derived from large international data sets across many studies, with their own inherent biases, many ignoring horizonation and depth variances. Initially pedotransfer functions from the literature were used to predict different horizon type bulk densities using local known bulk density data sets. Then the best performing of the pedotransfer functions were selected to recalibrate and then were validated again using the known data. The predicted co-efficient of determination was 0.5 or greater in 12 of the 17 horizon types studied. These new equations allowed gap filling where bulk density data were missing in part or whole soil profiles. This then allowed the development of an indicative soil bulk density map for Ireland at 0–30 and 30–50 cm horizon depths. In general the horizons with the largest known data sets had the best predictions, using the recalibrated and validated pedotransfer functions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/soil-2-25-2016

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

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?

  • Where measurement of a specific soil indicator is considered too expensive, too difficult or not possible, pedotransfer functions may provide a proxy value through measurement of other properties.

    “Where the measurement of a speci fi c soil indicator is considered too expensive, too di ffi cult or not possible (e.g. bulk density, due to the stoniness of the soil), pedotransfer functions may provide a proxy value through the measurement of other properties, for example carbon and texture for bulk density (Reidy et al., 2016).”

    From Soil quality – A critical review (2018) · cites this paper as Reidy et al., 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. An Foras Talúntais staff: West Cork Resource Survey, Soil Survey Bulletin, Dublin, 1963.
  2. An Foras Talúntais staff: West Donegal Resource Survey, Part 1 Soils and other physical resources, Soil Survey Bulletin, Dublin, 1969.
  3. An Foras Talúntais staff: County Leitrim Resource Survey, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 29, Dublin, 1973, 1973.
  4. Black, K. G. and Farrell, E. P. (Eds.): Carbon sequestration and Irish forest ecosystems, COFORD, Dublin, 2006.
  5. Conry, M. J. and Ryan, P.: Soils of Co. Carlow, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 17, Dublin, 1967.
  6. Conry, M. J.: Soils of Co. Laois, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 41, Dublin, 1987.
  7. Diamond, J. and Sills, P.: Soils of Co. Waterford, National Soil Survey of Ireland, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 44, Teagasc, Oak park, Carlow, Co. Carlow, Grehan Printers, Dubin, 314 pp., 2011.
  8. Finch, T. F. and Gardiner, M. J.: Soils of Co. Westmeath, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 37, Dublin, 1977.
  9. Finch, T. P. and Gardiner, M. J.: Soils of Tipperary North Riding, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 42, Dublin, 1993.
  10. Finch, T. F. and Ryan, P.: Soils of Co. Limerick, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 16, Dublin, 1966.
  11. Finch, T. F., Culleton, E., and Diamond, S.: Soil Survey Bulletin No. 23, Dublin, 1971.
  12. Finch, T. F., Gardiner, M. J., Comey, A., and Radford, T.: Soils of Co. Meath, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 37, Dublin, 1983.
  13. Gardiner, M. J. and Radford, T.: Soil Associations of Ireland and their land use potential, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 36, Dublin, 1980.
  14. Gardiner, M. J. and Ryan, P.: Soils of Co. Wexford, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 1, Dublin, 1964.
  15. Hammond, R. F. and Brennan, L. E.: Soils of Co. Offaly, Soil Survey Bulletin No. 43, Dublin, 2003.
  16. Murphy, B., Geeves, G., Miller, M., Summerell, G., Southwell, P., and Rankin, M.: The application of pedotransfer functions with existing soil maps to predict soil hydraulic properties for catchment-scale hydrologic and salinity modelling, Proceedings MODSIM Conference, Townsville, Australia, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Reidy, B., Simo, I., Sills, P., & Creamer, R. E.
Affiliations
Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
Corresponding author
Reidy, B.
Venue
SOIL
Published
2016-01-18
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
25-39
ISSN
  • 2199-3971 (ISSN-L)
  • 2199-398X
OpenAlex
W1921478807
Cited by
43
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SOIL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • T-Stór (Teagasc) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Teagasc
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
pedotransfer functions, soil bulk density, soil horizons, Irish soils, model recalibration, soil carbon stocks

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