Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Crop rotation

Bullock, D. G.·1992·Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences

Abstract

Crop rotation has been used for thousands of years. During the 1950s and early 1960s, it was felt that synthetic fertilizers and pesticides could forever replace crop rotation without loss of yield, but that opinion has changed. The current consensus is that crop rotation increases yield and profit and allows for sustained production. For example, maize, in a 2‐year rotation with soybean, yields 5 to 20% more than continuous maize, and no amount of fertilizer or pesticide can compensate completely for that difference. It is not well understood what causes the rotation effect, but improvements in soil physical properties and soil organic matter probably play a beneficial role in rotations that include multiple years of sod, pasture, or hay. Short rotations such as maize‐soybean actually result in a degradation in those same factors, yet the rotation effect still is realized. Recent information suggests that soilborne pathogens may be responsible for the yield depression seen with continuous monoculture.

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 · 10.1080/07352689209382349

Cites

54 of 54 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 54 references

Cited by

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
Bullock, D. G.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
Published
1992-01
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
309-326
ISSN
  • 0735-2689 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-7836
OpenAlex
W4211066633
Cited by
423
References
54
FWCI
3.26
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: Crop rotation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07352689209382349
The paper
Bullock, D. G. (1992). Crop rotation. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689209382349

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.