Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: a meta‐analysis

McClelland, Shelby C., Paustian, Keith, Schipanski, Meagan E.·2021·Ecological Applications
DOI 10.1002/eap.2278
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Increasing the quantity and quality of plant biomass production in space and time can improve the capacity of agroecosystems to capture and store atmospheric carbon (C) in the soil. Cover cropping is a key practice to increase system net primary productivity (NPP) and increase the quantity of high‐quality plant residues available for integration into soil organic matter (SOM). Cover crop management and local environmental conditions, however, influence the magnitude of soil C stock change. Here, we used a comprehensive meta‐analysis approach to quantify the effect of cover crops on soil C stocks from the 0–30 cm soil depth in temperate climates and to identify key management and ecological factors that impact variation in this response. A total of 40 publications with 181 observations were included in the meta‐analysis representing six countries across three different continents. Overall, cover crops had a strong positive effect on soil C stocks (P < 0.0001) leading to a 12% increase, averaging 1.11 Mg C/ha more soil C relative to a no cover crop control. The strongest predictors of SOC response to cover cropping were planting and termination date (i.e., growing window), annual cover crop biomass production, and soil clay content. Cover crops planted as continuous cover or autumn planted and terminated led to 20–30% greater total soil C stocks relative to other cover crop growing windows. Likewise, high annual cover crop biomass production (>7 Mg·ha−1·yr−1) resulted in 30% higher total soil C stocks than lower levels of biomass production. Managing for greater NPP by improving synchronization in cover crop growing windows and climate will enhance the capacity of this practice to drawdown carbon dioxide (CO 2) from the atmosphere across agroecosystems. The integration of growing window (potentially as a proxy for biomass growth), climate, and soil factors in decision‐support tools are relevant for improving the quantification of soil C stock change under cover crops, particularly with the expansion of terrestrial soil C markets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eap.2278

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
McClelland, S. C., Paustian, K., & Schipanski, M. E.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-03
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
e02278-e02278
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
DOI
10.1002/eap.2278
OpenAlex
W3117591763
Cited by
268
References
81
FWCI
15.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.