The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background: The loss of carbon (C) from agricultural soils has been, in part, attributed to tillage, a common practice providing a number of benefits to farmers. The promotion of less intensive tillage practices and no tillage (NT) (the absence of mechanical soil disturbance) aims to mitigate negative impacts on soil quality and to preserve soil organic carbon (SOC). Several reviews and meta-analyses have shown both beneficial and null effects on SOC due to no tillage relative to conventional tillage, hence there is a need for a comprehensive systematic review to answer the question: what is the impact of reduced tillage intensity on SOC? Methods: We systematically reviewed relevant research in boreo-temperate regions using, as a basis, evidence identified within a recently completed systematic map on the impacts of farming on SOC. We performed an update of the original searches to include studies published since the map search. We screened all evidence for relevance according to predetermined inclusion criteria. Studies were appraised and subject to data extraction. Meta-analyses were performed to investigate the impact of reducing tillage [from high (HT) to intermediate intensity (IT), HT to NT, and from IT to NT] for SOC concentration and SOC stock in the upper soil and at lower depths. Results: A total of 351 studies were included in the systematic review: 18% from an update of research published in the 2 years since the systematic map. SOC concentration was significantly higher in NT relative to both IT [1.18 g/kg ± 0.34 (SE)] and HT [2.09 g/kg ± 0.34 (SE)] in the upper soil layer (0–15 cm). IT was also found to be significant higher [1.30 g/kg ± 0.22 (SE)] in SOC concentration than HT for the upper soil layer (0–15 cm). At lower depths, only IT SOC compared with HT at 15–30 cm showed a significant difference; being 0.89 g/kg [± 0.20 (SE)] lower in intermediate intensity tillage. For stock data NT had significantly higher SOC stocks down to 30 cm than either HT [4.61 Mg/ha ± 1.95 (SE)] or IT [3.85 Mg/ha ± 1.64 (SE)]. No other comparisons were significant. Conclusions: The transition of tilled croplands to NT and conservation tillage has been credited with substantial potential to mitigate climate change via C storage. Based on our results, C stock increase under NT compared to HT was in the upper soil (0–30 cm) around 4.6 Mg/ha (0.78–8.43 Mg/ha, 95% CI) over ≥ 10 years, while no effect was detected in the full soil profile. The results support those from several previous studies and reviews that NT and IT increase SOC in the topsoil. Higher SOC stocks or concentrations in the upper soil not only promote a more productive soil with higher biological activity but also provide resilience to extreme weather conditions. The effect of tillage practices on total SOC stocks will be further evaluated in a forthcoming project accounting for soil bulk densities and crop yields. Our findings can hopefully be used to guide policies for sustainable management of agricultural 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
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
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Biogeochemistry: an Analysis of Global Change
(1991) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2012-0-01654-7 · Cited by 3,443
Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.11 · Cited by 2,949 · cited 1×
“e influence of individual studies was examined by plotting Cook’s Distance for each study [51], pointing out small groups of studies with considerable influence in the models.”
MethodThe role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 · Cited by 2,387
Self-citationSoil 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
Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems
Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K., & Batten, K. M. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2004.0347 · Cited by 2,176
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
Cited by
Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations
Chenu, C., Angers, D. A., Barré, P., Derrien, D., Arrouays, D., & Balesdent, J. (2019) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2018.04.011 · Cited by 733
Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B., & Cambardella, C. A. (2020) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114335 · Cited by 298
Effects of land dispossession and forced migration on Indigenous peoples in North America
Farrell, J., Burow, P. B., McConnell, K., Bayham, J., Whyte, K., & Koss, G. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abe4943 · Cited by 211
A rapid method to increase transparency and efficiency in web-based searches
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2017) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-016-0079-2 · Cited by 129
Self-citationĆurković, M., & Košec, A. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Haddaway, N. R., Hedlund, K., Jackson, L. E., Kätterer, T., Lugato, E., Thomsen, I. K., Jørgensen, H. B., & Isberg, P.-E.
- Venue
- Environmental Evidence
- Published
- 2017-12-18
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2047-2382 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2767422083
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 90
- FWCI
- 3.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13750-017-0108-9
- The paper
- Haddaway, N. R., Hedlund, K., Jackson, L. E., Kätterer, T., Lugato, E., Thomsen, I. K., Jørgensen, H. B., & Isberg, P.-E. (2017). How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environmental Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0108-9
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.