Cited by 79Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems

Ecosystem services along a management gradient in Michigan (USA) cropping systems

Syswerda, S.P., Robertson, G.P.·2014·Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

Abstract

To assess tradeoffs and synergies among different services provided by major ecosystems in agricultural landscapes, we examined agricultural yield, aboveground net primary productivity, global warming impact, soil quality, water conservation, water quality, and plant diversity in eight replicated ecosystems along a management intensity gradient on the same soil type in SW Michigan, USA. Ecosystems included four annual grain systems in a maize–soybean–wheat rotation, two perennial crops (alfalfa and hybrid poplar trees), an early successional community, and a late-successional deciduous forest. The annual grain systems included tilled and no-till treatments both managed with conventional chemical inputs; and reduced input and biologically based treatments both managed with tillage for weed control and leguminous winter cover crops for nitrogen. Radar diagrams illustrated the suite of services provided by each system. We found 13 significant interactions between ecosystem service indicators, seven being positive and six negative. Numerous trade-offs with grain yield were found, suggesting that by focusing on grain yield in these systems, land managers may be neglecting other ecosystem services. Management of nitrogen fertilizer, cover crops, and tillage (no-till) were particularly important determinants for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.006

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Syswerda, S. P., & Robertson, G. P.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Syswerda, S.P.
Venue
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
189
Pages
28-35
ISSN
0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976407819
Cited by
79
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Keywords
ecosystem services, cropping systems, perennial crops, alfalfa, hybrid poplar, no-tillage, chemical input reduction, nitrogen fertilizer management, aboveground net primary productivity, soil quality, water conservation, water quality, plant diversity, early successional communities, deciduous forest

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