Skip to content
Field Notes

The research side of permaculture.studio.

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
Oct 24, 2026

Claim by claim

  1. After ten years, no-till plots held more soil organic carbon than conventionally tilled plots in the top 20 cm of a South African Haplic Plinthosol.

    SupportedField trialField trial

    “No-till (NT) increased SOC by 0.64%, representing a 14.06% improvement over conventional tillage (CT), with greater carbon sequestration in the 0−20 cm soil layer.”

    The abstract directly confirms that after 10 years in a South African Haplic Plinthosol, no-till improved soil organic carbon compared to conventional tillage, particularly in the 0–20 cm layer.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 24, 2026

  2. The same trial found limited change in carbon between 20 and 60 cm, so the effect stayed near the surface.

    SupportedField trialField trial

    “Conservation agriculture, particularly NT combined with crop rotation and residue retention, improved SOC and carbon quality indicators in the topsoil. However, limited changes were observed in the 20−60 cm soil layers after 10 years”

    The study notes improvements in carbon indicators in the topsoil alongside limited changes in the 20–60 cm layers.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 24, 2026

  3. Crop rotation and residue retention increased particulate organic matter, mainly in the top 40 cm.

    SupportedField trialField trial

    “Crop rotation and residue retention enhanced particulate organic matter, particularly in the 0−20 and 20−40 cm depths.”

    The abstract directly confirms that crop rotation and residue retention enhanced particulate organic matter, particularly in the 0–20 and 20–40 cm layers (the top 40 cm).

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 24, 2026

  4. Conventional tillage produced higher humic acid concentrations than no-till, while no-till produced higher fulvic acid in the surface layer.

    SupportedField trialField trial

    “Conventional tillage increased humic acid concentrations by 25.40%, while NT increased fulvic acid concentrations by 41.67% in the surface layer.”

    The abstract directly confirms that conventional tillage increased humic acid concentrations while no-till increased fulvic acid concentrations in the surface layer.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 24, 2026

  5. Across agroforestry landscapes in Ghana and Burkina Faso, climate explained more variation in topsoil carbon than land use did.

    Partially supportedUnclassifiedUnclassified. The study design could not be determined automatically.

    “Climate was the dominant driver of SOC dynamics, explaining 26.3% of the variation in topsoil SOC, while the interaction between climate and land-use accounted for 34% of the variation in total SOC stocks.”

    The abstract identifies climate as the dominant driver explaining 26.3% of topsoil SOC variation, but it does not explicitly state the specific percentage of topsoil carbon variation explained by land use alone.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 24, 2026

  6. Reviews of soil carbon research list deep-soil carbon and long-term field datasets as major gaps.

    Partially supportedLaboratory studyLaboratory study. Shown under laboratory conditions, not in the field.

    “The analysis highlights major research gaps, including limited long-term field datasets, inadequate representation of deep-soil carbon”

    The claim generalizes findings from a single review focused on soil carbon research in India to reviews of soil carbon research in general.

    Checked by google/gemini-3.8-flash on Oct 24, 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.