Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,168

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: a meta‐analysis

Liu, Chang, Lu, Meng, Cui, Jun, Li, Bo, Fang, Changming·2014·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Straw return has been widely recommended as an environmentally friendly practice to manage carbon (C) sequestration in agricultural ecosystems. However, the overall trend and magnitude of changes in soil C in response to straw return remain uncertain. In this meta‐analysis, we calculated the response ratios of soil organic C (SOC) concentrations, greenhouse gases (GHG s) emission, nutrient contents and other important soil properties to straw addition in 176 published field studies. Our results indicated that straw return significantly increased SOC concentration by 12.8 ± 0.4% on average, with a 27.4 ± 1.4% to 56.6 ± 1.8% increase in soil active C fraction. CO2 emission increased in both upland (27.8 ± 2.0%) and paddy systems (51.0 ± 2.0%), while CH4 emission increased by 110.7 ± 1.2% only in rice paddies. N 2 O emission has declined by 15.2 ± 1.1% in paddy soils but increased by 8.3 ± 2.5% in upland soils. Responses of macro‐aggregates and crop yield to straw return showed positively linear with increasing SOC concentration. Straw‐C input rate and clay content significantly affected the response of SOC. A significant positive relationship was found between annual SOC sequestered and duration, suggesting that soil C saturation would occur after 12 years under straw return. Overall, straw return was an effective means to improve SOC accumulation, soil quality, and crop yield. Straw return‐induced improvement of soil nutrient availability may favor crop growth, which can in turn increase ecosystem C input. Meanwhile, the analysis on net global warming potential (GWP) balance suggested that straw return increased C sink in upland soils but increased C source in paddy soils due to enhanced CH4 emission. Our meta‐analysis suggested that future agro‐ecosystem models and cropland management should differentiate the effects of straw return on ecosystem C budget in upland and paddy soils.

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 · 10.1111/gcb.12517

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 1,168

Metadata

Authors
Liu, C., Lu, M., Cui, J., Li, B., & Fang, C.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02-13
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
1366-1381
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2128773885
Cited by
1,168
References
8
FWCI
39.19
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: Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gcb.12517
The paper
Liu, C., Lu, M., Cui, J., Li, B., & Fang, C. (2014). Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: a meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12517

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.