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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C., & Jenkinson, D. S. (1987) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(87)90052-6 · Cited by 12,887
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soils
Anderson, J. P. E., & Domsch, K. H. (1978) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(78)90099-8 · Cited by 3,276
Lützow, M. V., Kögel‐Knabner, I., Ekschmitt, K., Matzner, E., Guggenberger, G., Marschner, B., & Flessa, H. (2006) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00809.x · Cited by 2,938
Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis
West, T. O., & Post, W. M. (2002) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2002.1930 · Cited by 2,215
Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods
Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2015) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0060-8 · Cited by 1,732
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25753 · Cited by 1,709
Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture
Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee, J., Lundy, M. E., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R. T., & van Kessel, C. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13809 · Cited by 1,688
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.