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
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.
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
Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
Lal, R. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1097396 · Cited by 8,376
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 3×
“The natural log-transformed response ratio (lnRR) was employed to reflect the effects of straw return on soil C pools, gas fluxes, and soil properties in agricultural systems, and it was calculated by following equation (Hedges et al., 1999): lnRR 1⁄4 lnðXt=XcÞ 1⁄4 lnðXtÞ lnðXcÞ ð4Þ”
MethodStabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implications for C-saturation of soils
Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A., & Paustian, K. (2002) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1016125726789 · Cited by 4,633
Soil carbon saturation: concept, evidence and evaluation
Stewart, C. E., Paustian, K., Conant, R. T., Plante, A. F., & Six, J. (2007) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9140-0 · Cited by 911
Six, J., Ogle, S. M., Jay breidt, F., Conant, R. T., Mosier, A. R., & Paustian, K. (2004) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00730.x · Cited by 878
Management options for reducing CO2 emissions from agricultural soils
Paustian, K., Six, J., Elliott, E. T., & Hunt, H. W. (2000) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1023/a:1006271331703 · Cited by 846
Crop Management for Soil Carbon Sequestration
Jarecki, M. K., & Lal, R. (2003) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/713608318 · Cited by 396
West, T. O., & Six, J. (2007) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9173-8 · Cited by 360
Cited by
Current status and environment impact of direct straw return in China’s cropland – A review
Li, H., Dai, M., Dai, S., & Dong, X. (2018) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.05.014 · Cited by 459
Utilization of waste straw and husks from rice production: A review
Goodman, B. A. (2020) · Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts · doi:10.1016/j.jobab.2020.07.001 · Cited by 426
Berhane, M., Xu, M., Liang, Z., Shi, J., Wei, G., & Tian, X. (2020) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15018 · Cited by 389
Optimal nitrogen rate strategy for sustainable rice production in China
Cai, S., Zhao, X., Pittelkow, C. M., Fan, M., Zhang, X., & Yan, X. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05678-x · Cited by 312
Zhao, H., Shar, A. G., Li, S., Chen, Y., Shi, J., Zhang, X., & Tian, X. (2018) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2017.09.012 · Cited by 299
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.