Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil organic carbon storage

Alvarez, R., Alvarez, R.·2005·Soil Use and Management
DOI 10.1079/sum2005291
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract. The effects of nitrogen fertilizer and tillage systems on soil organic carbon (SOC) storage have been tested in many field experiments worldwide. The published results of this research are here compiled for evaluation of the impact of management practices on carbon sequestration. Paired data from 137 sites with varying nitrogen rates and 161 sites with contrasting tillage systems were included. Nitrogen fertilizer increased SOC but only when crop residues were returned to the soil; a multiple regression model accounted for just over half the variance ( R 2 =0.56, P =0.001). The model included as independent variables: cumulative nitrogen fertilizer rate; rainfall; temperature; soil texture; and a cropping intensity index, calculated as a combination of the number of crops per year and percentage of corn in the rotation. Carbon sequestration increased as more nitrogen was applied to the system, and as rainfall or cropping intensity increased. At sites with higher mean temperatures and also in fine textured soils, carbon sequestration decreased. When the carbon costs of production, transportation and application of fertilizer are subtracted from the carbon sequestration predicted by the model, it appears that nitrogen fertilizer‐use in tropical regions results in no additional carbon sequestration, whereas in temperate climates, it appears to promote net carbon sequestration. No differences in SOC were found between reduced till (chisel, disc, and sweep till) and no‐till, whereas conventional tillage (mouldboard plough, disc plough) was associated with less SOC. The accumulation of SOC under conservation tillage (reduced and no till) was an S ‐shape time dependent process, which reached a steady state after 25–30 years, but this relationship only accounted for 26% of the variance. Averaging out SOC differences in all the experiments under conservation tillage, there was an increase of 2.1 t C ha −1 over ploughing. However, when only those cases that had apparently reached equilibrium were included (all no till vs. conventional tillage comparisons from temperate regions), mean SOC increased by approximately 12 t C ha −1 . This estimate is larger than others previously reported. Carbon sequestration under conservation tillage was not significantly related to climate, soil texture or rotation.

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 · 10.1079/sum2005291

Cites

73 of 73 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

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Alvarez, R., & Alvarez, R.
Venue
Soil Use and Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-03-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
38-52
ISSN
  • 0266-0032 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2743
DOI
10.1079/sum2005291
OpenAlex
W2136602937
Cited by
444
References
73
FWCI
9.63
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

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.