Verification record
Every claim in this article was checked against the abstracts of the papers it cites, by a separate pass that was given those abstracts and nothing else. A claim marked supported carries the sentence that supports it, quoted verbatim below.
- References
- 14
- Claims checked
- 6
- Fully supported
- 4
- Checked on
- Sep 25, 2026
Claim by claim
In a 2025 field trial on saline silty loam in Jilin Province, China, 40 t/ha of animal manure reduced soil electrical conductivity to 4.63 dS/m and pH to 7.97, against 6.81 dS/m and 8.12 in control plots.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Results showed that higher manure levels (40 tons/ha) significantly reduced EC (4.63 dS m⁻¹) and pH (7.97) compared to the control (6.81 dS m⁻¹ and 8.12, respectively).”
The claim accurately states the location, soil type, and exact EC and pH measurements for the 40 t/ha manure treatment versus control as reported in the abstract.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
Increasing manure application depth from 10 cm to 30 cm reduced electrical conductivity from 6.13 to 5.48 dS/m but had no significant effect on pH.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Increasing application depth from 10 to 30 cm reduced EC (6.13 to 5.48 dS m⁻¹) but had no significant effect on pH.”
The abstract directly supports that increasing application depth from 10 to 30 cm reduced EC (electrical conductivity) from 6.13 to 5.48 dS m⁻¹ without significantly affecting pH.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
Mixing manure into the soil produced lower electrical conductivity (5.42 dS/m) than laying it in a subsurface band (6.13 dS/m); pH did not differ by application method.
SupportedField trialField trial
“Mixing manure with soil yielded lower EC (5.42 dS m⁻¹) than subsurface laying (6.13 dS m⁻¹), though pH remained unaffected by application method.”
The abstract directly verifies that mixing manure into the soil yielded an EC of 5.42 dS m⁻¹ compared to 6.13 dS m⁻¹ for subsurface laying, with pH unaffected by application method.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
The lowest electrical conductivity recorded, 3.99 dS/m, came from 40 t/ha mixed at 30 cm depth, and bulk density fell from 1.23 to 1.20 Mg/m3 as depth increased from 10 to 30 cm.
SupportedField trialField trial
“The lowest EC (3.99 dS m⁻¹) was observed with 40 tons/ha mixed at 30 cm depth, while the lowest pH (7.95) occurred at 30 cm depth. Soil bulk density decreased from 1.23 to 1.20 Mg m⁻³ as application depth increased from 10 to 30 cm.”
The claim accurately reports the findings for the lowest EC observed and the decrease in soil bulk density across application depths.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
The trial measured only electrical conductivity, pH and bulk density, sampled after a single harvest at one site; the abstract reports no crop yield, no multi-year data and no biological or organic carbon measurements.
Partially supportedField trialField trial
“Soil samples were collected post-harvest to measure EC, pH and bulk density.”
While the abstract confirms that soil samples were collected post-harvest at a single site to measure EC, pH, and bulk density, it does not explicitly state that 'only' these metrics were measured nor explicitly state the absence of yield, multi-year, or biological data.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
Subsoiling to 30 and 40 cm increased urease, acid phosphatase and cellulase activity and bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere of flue-cured tobacco in Yunnan mountain soils, relative to 20 cm rotary tillage.
Partially supportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.
“In the results, the DT30, ST30 and ST40 measures significantly reduced activity of catalase, increased the activities of urease, acid phosphatase and cellulose, and increased the diversity and richness of bacterial communities in the rhizosphere soil.”
The abstract refers to 'cellulose' rather than 'cellulase' activity and reports these increases alongside 30 cm deep tillage (DT30) rather than isolating subsoiling tillage alone.
Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Sep 25, 2026
What this does and does not prove
It proves that every DOI cited resolves to a real registered work whose returned DOI matches the one requested, that none of them is retracted, and that each claim has a named sentence in a cited abstract behind it.
It does not prove that the paper as a whole supports the claim. An abstract can overstate its own findings, and a sentence can be read out of context. That is why the quote is printed here rather than summarised: if the check is wrong, you can see that it is wrong.
Evidence grading is automatic and conservative. Anything it cannot classify is marked unclassified rather than flattered upward.