R08 Citation Verification — Batch A (CCKE PROTOCOL v1.3)
Verified 2026-08-31 via Crossref API + PubMed. Checker: Claude (citation-verifier subagent).
Summary table
| # | Citation | Identity | Claim-support | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kakabouki 2021, Plants 10:1333 | VERIFIED | PARTIAL | DQI +12.4% yes; but root biomass NOT affected, “root surface area” and “organic” not in abstract (root length +34%, stem DW +21.4%) |
| 2 | Seemakram 2022, FPLS 13:845794 | VERIFIED (ChatGPT title) | (a) UNVERIFIABLE (b) YES/PARTIAL | Real title is ChatGPT’s; Gemini’s title is fabricated. Gemini’s 33%/+120% figures not in abstract |
| 3 | Shiponi & Bernstein 2021, FPLS 12:657323 | VERIFIED | YES | 30 mg/L → 80% max yield; THCA/CBDA down up to 25%; dilution effect stated. “Luxury accumulation” is a gloss |
| 4 | Bevan 2021, FPLS 12:764103 | VERIFIED | YES | Optimal flowering P predicted 59 mg/L (and N 194) — exact match |
| 5 | Saloner & Bernstein 2021, ICP 167 | 113516 = REAL; 113554 = WRONG | PARTIAL | 113554 resolves to Liu et al., polysaccharide extraction from Cortex periplocae. Direction right; 15–25% magnitude unverified (published reductions in THCA were larger, ~2/3 at high N) |
| 6 | Bernstein 2019, FPLS 10:736 | VERIFIED | NO | Paper is NPK + humic acid supplementation effects on chemical profile — it studied neither living-soil-vs-fertigation potency nor “rhizosphere elicitation 10–20% terpene shifts” |
| 7a | Zager 2020, PP, 10.1104/pp.20.00593 | FAILED | PARTIAL | That DOI = Booth et al. 2020 “Terpene Synthases and Terpene Variation in Cannabis sativa”, Plant Physiol 184:130–147. Real Zager et al. 2019, Plant Physiol 180:1877–1897, DOI 10.1104/pp.18.01506 |
| 7b | Vergara 2016, RSOS 160397 | FAILED | UNVERIFIABLE | DOI 404s in Crossref; no cannabis paper found in RSOS 2015–2018. Likely fabricated; real Vergara 2016 is “Genetic and genomic tools for Cannabis sativa”, Crit Rev Plant Sci 35:364–377 |
| 8 | Lyu 2019, FPLS 10:1081 | FAILED | PARTIAL | Cited DOI = rice OsNramp5 cadmium paper. Real: Lyu et al. 2019, Front MICROBIOLOGY 10:1761, DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01761 — and it is a PERSPECTIVE/review, not an experimental evaluation |
| 9 | Winston 2014, PLOS ONE e99641 | VERIFIED | NO | Paper is cultivar-specificity/soil determinants of cannabis microbiome in soils; contains no living-soil vs coir vs rockwool comparison; the H’ figures (4.5–6.0 / 2.0–3.0 / <1.5) do not appear — fabricated numbers |
| 10 | Comeau 2020, Front Microbiol 11:491 | VERIFIED | NO | Spatio-temporal/cultivar microbiome of 3 chemotypes (rhizosphere/endorhizosphere/phyllosphere); no substrate-diversity comparison |
| 11 | Treseder 2008, Ecol Lett 11:1111–1120 | VERIFIED | NO | Confirmed: “Nitrogen additions and microbial biomass: a meta-analysis”. Nothing about AMF P-thresholds or strigolactones — wrong attribution |
| 12 | Booth & Bohlmann 2019, Plant Sci 284:67–72 | VERIFIED | YES | “Terpenes in Cannabis sativa — From plant genome to humans”; review covering TPS gene family determination of terpene profiles |
Details
1. Kakabouki et al. 2021 — 10.3390/plants10071333
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. Plants 10(7):1333, 2021, authors match.
- CLAIM: PARTIAL. Crossref abstract: greenhouse FLOAT SYSTEM, 3 AMF spore doses. AMF3: root length +34.14%, stem DW +21.4%, survival +5%, P content +24.3%, DQI +12.4%. But “biomass of the seedlings’ roots… were NOT affected by the AMF”; root surface area not mentioned; “organic” not stated. Directionally right on DQI, wrong on biomass/root surface area.
2. Seemakram et al. 2022 — 10.3389/fpls.2022.845794
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED for the ChatGPT tuple. Real title: “Enhancement of growth and Cannabinoids content of hemp (Cannabis sativa) using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi” (Seemakram, Paluka, Suebrasri, Lapjit, Kanokmedhakul, Kuyper… 2022, FPLS 13:845794). Gemini’s title “AMF Inoculation Increases Cannabidiol Concentration…” does not exist.
- CLAIM (a) Gemini (CBD +33%, yield +120%, “moderate nutrients”): UNVERIFIABLE — abstract gives no such magnitudes; design had no “moderate nutrient” gradient (unfertilized vs NPK controls). Treat as suspect.
- CLAIM (b) ChatGPT: YES/PARTIAL — abstract confirms CRD, six replications, 60 days, R. aggregatus BM-3 g3 best in biomass and CBD/THC concentrations vs unfertilized control. 7.5-L pots / sterilized sandy-loam not confirmable from abstract (plausible methods details).
3. Shiponi & Bernstein 2021 — 10.3389/fpls.2021.657323
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED (full title includes subtitle “…Effects on Cannabinoids, the Ionome, and Morpho-Physiology”).
- CLAIM: YES. Abstract: 30 mg/L sufficient for 80% of max yield (30–90 optimal range); P >5 mg/L reduced THCA/CBDA up to 25%; linear decrease with yield = dilution effect; ~80% of plant P accumulated in inflorescences (basis of the “luxury accumulation” gloss).
4. Bevan et al. 2021 — 10.3389/fpls.2021.764103
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. “Optimisation of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium for Soilless Production of Cannabis sativa in the Flowering Stage Using Response Surface Analysis”, FPLS 12:764103.
- CLAIM: YES. Abstract states predicted optima N 194 and P 59 mg/L for inflorescence yield.
5. Saloner & Bernstein 2021 — article-number conflict
- IDENTITY: The REAL paper is DOI 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113516, Ind Crops Prod 167:113516 — title/authors match exactly. The in-text DOI 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113554 resolves to Liu et al. 2021, “Kinetic studies of internal boiling extraction… polysaccharides from Cortex periplocae” (same journal/volume) — unrelated. Gemini’s in-text citation is WRONG; source-list entry is right.
- CLAIM: PARTIAL. Direction (high N reduces cannabinoid concentration) is what the paper shows, but the specific “15–25%” range could not be verified (no Crossref/PubMed abstract; the paper’s reported THCA reductions at high N are substantially larger than 25%). The pure “dilution effect” framing is also the Shiponi P-paper’s language, not necessarily this paper’s mechanism.
6. Bernstein et al. 2019 — 10.3389/fpls.2019.00736
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. “Impact of N, P, K, and Humic Acid Supplementation on the Chemical Profile of Medical Cannabis (Cannabis sativa L)”, FPLS 10:736.
- CLAIM: NO. The study is a fertigation supplementation experiment (enhanced NPK/humic acid vs control); it contains no living-soil vs mineral-fertigation comparison and no “rhizosphere elicitation shifts terpene ratios 10–20%” finding as attributed. Both claims are misattributions.
7. Zager / Vergara — chemotype genetics
- Zager IDENTITY: FAILED. DOI 10.1104/pp.20.00593 = Booth, Yuen, Jancsik, Madilao, Page, Bohlmann 2020, “Terpene Synthases and Terpene Variation in Cannabis sativa”, Plant Physiology 184:130–147. Correct Zager tuple: Zager, Lange, Srividya, Smith et al. 2019, “Gene Networks Underlying Cannabinoid and Terpenoid Accumulation in Cannabis”, Plant Physiology 180:1877–1897, DOI 10.1104/pp.18.01506.
- Vergara IDENTITY: FAILED. 10.1098/rsos.160397 returns 404 in Crossref; a search of Royal Society Open Science 2015–2018 finds no cannabis paper. Likely fabricated. Closest real Vergara 2016: “Genetic and genomic tools for Cannabis sativa”, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 35:364–377.
- CLAIM: PARTIAL at best. THC:CBD chemotype determination at the THCAS/CBDAS (B) locus is a real, well-established finding (classically de Meijer et al. 2003, Genetics), but neither cited object supports it as attributed (one is the wrong paper for the DOI, one doesn’t resolve).
8. Lyu et al. 2019 — PGPR
- IDENTITY: FAILED. Cited DOI 10.3389/fpls.2019.01081 = Wang et al. 2019 rice OsNramp5 cadmium paper (Front Plant Sci 10:1081). Correct tuple: Lyu, Backer, Robinson, Smith 2019, “Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria for Cannabis Production: Yield, Cannabinoid Profile and Disease Resistance”, Frontiers in MICROBIOLOGY 10:1761, DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01761.
- CLAIM: PARTIAL. PubMed abstract shows it is a PERSPECTIVE examining PGPR potential for cannabis, not an experimental evaluation of Bacillus/Pseudomonas cell-free broths (the experimental cell-free-broth work is later Lyu/Smith papers, e.g. Ind Crops Prod 178:114583, 2022).
9. Winston et al. 2014 — 10.1371/journal.pone.0099641
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. “Understanding Cultivar-Specificity and Soil Determinants of the Cannabis Microbiome”, PLoS ONE 9:e99641.
- CLAIM: NO. The study sequenced rhizosphere/endorhizosphere/bulk-soil communities of cannabis cultivars grown in soils; it makes no living-soil vs coir vs rockwool comparison, and the attributed Shannon values (H’ >4.5–6.0 / 2.0–3.0 / <1.5) do not appear in it. Fabricated quantitative attribution.
10. Comeau et al. 2020 — 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00491
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. “Spatio-Temporal and Cultivar-Dependent Variations in the Cannabis Microbiome”, Front Microbiol 11:491.
- CLAIM: NO. PubMed abstract: microbiome of rhizosphere/endorhizosphere/phyllosphere across life cycle of three chemotypes — cultivar and compartment effects, not a growing-substrate diversity comparison. Does not support the living-soil vs coir vs rockwool claim.
11. Treseder 2008 — 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01230.x
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. “Nitrogen additions and microbial biomass: a meta-analysis of ecosystem studies”, Ecology Letters 11:1111–1120.
- CLAIM: NO. As suspected: it is an N-fertilization/microbial-biomass meta-analysis (biomass −15% under N additions). Nothing on P thresholds (30–50 mg/L), AMF suppression mechanisms, or strigolactones. Wrong attribution.
12. Booth & Bohlmann 2019 — 10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.03.022
- IDENTITY: VERIFIED. “Terpenes in Cannabis sativa – From plant genome to humans”, Plant Science 284:67–72.
- CLAIM: YES. Review of cannabis terpenes including the TPS gene family basis of terpene profiles; consistent with the attribution.
Tallies
- IDENTITY: 8 VERIFIED · 4 FAILED/wrong-DOI (Zager, Vergara, Lyu, Saloner in-text 113554; note #2 had a fabricated Gemini title but a resolvable object, counted VERIFIED)
- CLAIM-SUPPORT: 4 YES · 4 PARTIAL · 4 NO (plus 2 UNVERIFIABLE sub-claims in #2a/#7)