Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does crop rotation yield more in China? A meta-analysis

Zhao, Jie, Yang, Yadong, Zhang, Kai, Jeong, Jaehak, Zeng, Zhaohai, Zang, Huadong·2020·Field Crops Research

Abstract

Abstract Crop rotation has been widely used to mitigate weed, insect, and pathogen pressure, as well as to increase plant diversity. However, the magnitude of and variability in crop yield with rotation in China remain uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis on 45 studies with 214 comparisons to examine the effects of crop rotation on yield and to explore the importance of environmental factors and field management in determining yield variability. Rotation increased crop yields by 20% on average when compared with continuous monoculture practices. Effects of rotation on crop yield were more pronounced in southwestern China (+38%) than in eastern China (+10%) and were notably less reliable and generally smaller in regions with moderate annual rainfall (400–550 mm). Rotation had greater yield benefits in soils with coarse or medium soil textures, intermediate levels of initial soil organic carbon (7–10 g kg−1), and lower total nitrogen (≤ 1.2 g kg−1). Effect of rotation on crop yield also depends on the type of previously cultivated crops (hereinafter, pre-crops), ranging from 2% for Triticeae pre-crops to 27% for grain leguminous pre-crops. Yield increase under legume-based rotations was 14% higher than that without legumes. The mean yield response of the crop subsequent to rotation ranged from 6% (cereals, except for Triticeae crops) to 34% (root crops). The legacy benefit of rotation on subsequent crop yield persisted for 2–3 years, decreasing from +31% in the second year to +8% in the third year. Effect of rotation on crop yield under conventional tillage was greater than that under conservation tillage. The yield benefit of rotation on subsequent crops was much higher with a lower nitrogen fertilization rate (≤ 120 kg ha−1), indicating that fertilization can be reduced and an acceptable yield maintained with crop rotation. In conclusion, crop rotation largely increases agricultural production without extra inputs, although its design may need to consider diverse climates, soils, crops, and management practices to maximize its agronomic and environmental benefits.

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 · 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107659

Cites

64 of 64 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

Show all 64 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, J., Yang, Y., Zhang, K., Jeong, J., Zeng, Z., & Zang, H.
Venue
Field Crops Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
245
Pages
107659
ISSN
0378-4290 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982635350
Cited by
267
References
64
FWCI
3.66
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does crop rotation yield more in China? A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107659
The paper
Zhao, J., Yang, Y., Zhang, K., Jeong, J., Zeng, Z., & Zang, H. (2020). Does crop rotation yield more in China? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107659

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.