Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis

Open access
Nunes, Márcio R., Karlen, Douglas L., Veum, Kristen S., Moorman, Thomas B., Cambardella, Cynthia A.·2020·Geoderma

Abstract

Tillage intensity affects soil microbiological activity in many ways, often driven by changes in soil organic C (SOC) content. The magnitude and direction of those changes, however, depends on inherent (e.g., soil type and texture), experimental (e.g., study duration and sampling depth) and agronomic factors (e.g., cropping system and crop residue management). This nationwide meta-analysis examines published effects of chisel plowing (CP), no-tillage (NT), and perennial cropping systems (PER) relative to moldboard plow (MP) on seven soil health indicators: SOC, microbial biomass C (MBC), microbial biomass N (MBN), soil respiration (Resp), active-C (AC), beta-glucosidase activity (BG) and soil protein (Prot) within four soil depth increments in 302 studies from throughout the United States (U.S.). Overall, converting from MP to CP primarily affected topsoil (0 to ≤ 15 cm) SOC, MBC, and Resp, whereas converting from MP to NT significantly increased all seven soil health indicators in the topsoil. Below the topsoil, NT had greater MBC, MBN, Resp, and BG relative to MP (i.e., 15 to 25-cm). The impact of NT was affected by latitude, soil order, time under NT, and cropping system. Among soil orders, management practices had the largest positive effects in Ultisols, Inceptisols, Alfisols, and Mollisols. Those effects were most noticeable at lower latitudes, in systems that included cover crops or residue retention, and in experiments conducted for at least three years. Perennial systems had a positive effect on all soil health indicators at all soil depths (0 to >40-cm). The positive response of PER systems compared to MP was enhanced at lower latitudes and in Alfisols, Inceptisols, Entisols, and Mollisols. Based on this meta-analysis, reducing tillage intensity, planting cover crop and/or minimizing crop residue removal within annual cropping systems can significantly improve soil biological health in the U.S. Finally, we demonstrate that SOC and many other biological indicators are sensitive to management practices, confirming their utility in soil health assessment.

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.geoderma.2020.114335

Cites

68 of 68 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 68 references

Metadata

Authors
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B., & Cambardella, C. A.
Venue
Geoderma
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
369
Pages
114335
ISSN
0016-7061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3011747679
Cited by
298
References
68
FWCI
23.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114335
The paper
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B., & Cambardella, C. A. (2020). Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis. Geoderma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114335

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.