ArticlePloS one2021
Identification and predictability of soil quality indicators from conventional soil and vegetation classifications.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A review on effective soil health bio-indicators for ecosystem restoration and sustainability.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The physical, chemical and biological attributes of a soil combined with abiotic factors (e.g. climate and topography) drive pedogenesis and some of these attributes have been used as proxies to soil quality. Thus, we investigated: (1) whether appropriate soil quality indicators (SQIs) could be identified in soils of Great Britain, (2) whether conventional soil classification or aggregate vegetation classes (AVCs) could predict SQIs and (3) to what extent do soil types and/ or AVCs act as major regulators of SQIs. Factor analysis was used to group 20 soil attributes into six SQI which were named as; soil organic matter (SOM), dissolved organic matter (DOM), soluble N, reduced N, microbial biomass, DOM humification (DOMH). SOM was identified as the most important SQI in the discrimination of both soil types and AVCs. Soil attributes constituting highly to the SOM factor were, microbial quotient and bulk density. The SOM indicator discriminated three soil type groupings and four aggregate vegetation class groupings. Among the soil types, only the peat soils were discriminated from other groups while among the AVCs only the heath and bog classes were isolated from others. However, the peat soil and heath and bog AVC were the only groups that were distinctly discriminated from other groups. All other groups heavily overlapped with one another, making it practically impossible to define reference values for each soil type or AVC. The two-way ANOVA showed that the AVCs were a better regulator of the SQIs than the soil types. We conclude that conventionally classified soil types cannot predict the SQIs defined from large areas with differing climatic and edaphic factors. Localised areas with similar climatic and topoedaphic factors may hold promise for the definition of SQI that may predict the soil types or AVCs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.