ArticlePloS one2022
Effect of different soil amendments on soil buffering capacity.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Resolution prediction of soil pH in European temperate forests using Sentinel-2 and ancillary environmental data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optimizing experimental conditions: the role of buffered environments in microbial isolation, physiological studies, and taxonomic characterization.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Review
- Mitigating soil compaction and enhancing corn (Zea mays L.) growth through biological and non-biological amendments.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Research progress on iron absorption, transport, and molecular regulation strategy in plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Enzymatic Potential of Filamentous Fungi as a Biological Pretreatment for Acidogenic Fermentation of Coffee Waste.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2022-09-30Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation · Conflict of Interest · Compromised Peer Review · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The buffering capacity of the soil is a very important property of the soil, which determines the ability of the soil to resist external influences, especially changes in pH and thus create good living conditions for plants and microorganisms in the soil. The buffering capacity thus significantly contributes to maintaining the health and quality of the soil. Buffering capacity is an important indicator of soil quality, because it is related to the overall condition of the soil ecosystem and other soil properties. The goal of this paper is to determine the effect of applying different soil amendments on the soils, 10 years after application. We compared the effect of 6 different treatments in closed plots: Natural conditions (N = control); Bare soil (B); Straw mulching (S); Pine mulch (P); TerraCottem hydroabsorbent polymers (H); Prescribed burn (F); and Sewage sludge (M). Our results have shown that the application of different amedments leads to an effect on the plowing capacity of the soil. While in the case of the control variant (Natural conditions, N) the buffering capacity of the soil was measured at 144.93 ± 0.25, the addition of different amendments decreased the buffering capacity in the following order: Bare soil (B) 142.73±0.21 > TerraCotem hydroaborbent polymer (H) 142.23±.15 > Pine mulch (P) 140.40±0.30, Prescribed burn (F) 138.20±0.30, Sludge (S) 127.47±0.15. In the case of all variants, these are statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). Thus, soil amendments have been shown to have a statistically significant effect on soil buffering capacity.
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.