Cited by 73Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldSoil erosion and sediment transport

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Intensification of no‐till agricultural systems: An opportunity for carbon sequestration

Open access
Nicoloso, Rodrigo S., Rice, Charles W.·2021·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

The “4 per 1,000” initiative was launched at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) stimulating a long‐standing debate on the potential of no‐till (NT) to promote soil C sequestration. Previous reviews found little or no soil organic C (SOC) accrual in NT soils as compared with full inversion tillage when soils are sampled deeper than 30 cm. Here, we present the results of a global meta‐analysis of studies assessing SOC and total N (TN) storage and dynamics in NT and tilled soils from the most important agricultural regions of the world. Overall, our results show that NT soils stored 6.7 ± 1.9 Mg C ha –1 and 1.1 ± 0.4 Mg N ha –1 more than tilled soils (0‐to‐100‐cm depth) with an average of 16 yr of NT, in contrast with previous findings. However, C sequestration (+4.7 ± 1.9 Mg C ha –1 in the 0‐to‐60‐cm depth with an average of 11 yr of NT) depended on the association of NT with increased crop frequency and the inclusion of legumes cover crops. Single‐cropping systems lack the necessary C inputs to offset SOC losses in the soil profile (below 30‐cm depth). However, double‐cropping systems decreased soil TN that may constrain future C sequestration. The use of legumes alleviated TN loss and supported soil C sequestration. Briefly, our findings indicate that NT can avoid SOC losses from tilled soils, partially offsetting CO 2 emissions from agriculture. Moreover, NT with agricultural intensification can promote soil C sequestration, thus contributing to soil quality, food security, and adaptation to climate change.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/saj2.20260

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 73

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Grassini P., 2015, Crop physiology, 17–41)
  2. Rosenberg M. S., 1999, MetaWin: Statistical software for meta‐analysis
  3. Soil Survey Staff, 2014, Keys to soil taxonomy

Metadata

Authors
Nicoloso, R. S., & Rice, C. W.
Affiliations
  • Embrapa Swine and Poultry C. Postal 321, BR 153 km 110 Concordia Santa Catarina 89715‐899 Brazil
  • Kansas State University (US)
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-05
Volume
85
Issue
5
Pages
1395-1409
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W3158958199
Cited by
73
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
FWCI
7.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Bayer Corporation
  • National Science Foundation (EPS‐0903806)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
no-tillage, soil organic carbon sequestration, soil total nitrogen, tillage systems, 4 per 1000 initiative, double cropping, legume cover crops, crop rotation, agricultural intensification, soil carbon storage

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