Cited by 179Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

The effects of organic and mineral fertilizers on carbon sequestration, soil properties, and crop yields from a long-term field experiment under a Swiss conventional farming system

Open access
Maltas, Alexandra, Kebli, Hedi, Oberholzer, Hans Rudolf, Weisskopf, Peter, Sinaj, Sokrat·2018·Land Degradation & Development

Abstract

The effects of mineral fertilizers and organic amendments on soil properties, carbon (C) sequestration, and crop yields are studied in a 37‐year field experiment, Phosphorus–Potassium‐balanced design, in Switzerland. Treatments included a control (mineral fertilization) without nitrogen (N) fertilizers (Min‐N0) and with optimal N (Min‐Nopt) and 5 organic amendments (green manure [Gm], cereal straw [Str], fresh cattle manure in 2 doses 35 and 70 t ha−1 [Ma35 and Ma70] and cattle slurry [Slu]) all receiving the same optimal N fertilization as Min‐Nopt. All mineral and organic treatments received optimum P–K fertilization. Nitrogen fertilization (Min‐Nopt vs. Min‐N0) increased soil organic C, microbial activity, and microporosity but decreased pH, magnesium, and macroporosity. All organic treatments with optimal mineral N resulted in higher soil organic C content compared with Min‐Nopt, however, these effects were significant only for the highest dose of manure. The organic amendments supplied 25% to 80% additional C input to the soil compared with Min‐Nopt, and their amendment‐C retention coefficients ranged from 1.6% (Gm) to 13.6% (Ma70). Chemical, physical, and biological soil properties were not or slightly significantly different among organic treatments. Nevertheless, soils fertilized with farmyard manure produced generally higher grain yield (up to 7.3%) compared with Min‐Nopt whereas the opposite effect was noted for Gm (−2.2%) and Str (−5.2%) treatments due to their negative effect on N availability. In conclusion, Gm and Str treatments were as effectives as Ma35 and Slu treatments to prevent soil degradation but required higher chemical fertilizer to maintain crop yield.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ldr.2913

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maltas, A., Kebli, H., Oberholzer, H. R., Weisskopf, P., & Sinaj, S.
Affiliations
Agroscope (CH)
Corresponding author
Sinaj, Sokrat
Venue
Land Degradation & Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-14
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
926-938
ISSN
  • 1085-3278 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-145X
OpenAlex
W2793129704
Cited by
179
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 3
FWCI
15.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Land Degradation and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Agroscope
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
organic fertilizer, mineral fertilizers, soil carbon sequestration, soil organic carbon, crop yield, green manure, cereal straw, cattle manure, cattle slurry, nitrogen fertilization, soil properties, soil degradation, conventional farming, long-term field experiment

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