The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Identifying agricultural practices that enhance water cycling is critical, particularly with increased rainfall variability and greater risks of droughts and floods. Soil infiltration rates offer useful insights to water cycling in farming systems because they affect both yields (through soil water availability) and other ecosystem outcomes (such as pollution and flooding from runoff). For example, conventional agricultural practices that leave soils bare and vulnerable to degradation are believed to limit the capacity of soils to quickly absorb and retain water needed for crop growth. Further, it is widely assumed that farming methods such as no-till and cover crops can improve infiltration rates. Despite interest in the impacts of agricultural practices on infiltration rates, this effect has not been systematically quantified across a range of practices. To evaluate how conventional practices affect infiltration rates relative to select alternative practices (no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, introducing perennials, crop and livestock systems), we performed a meta-analysis that included 89 studies with field trials comparing at least one such alternative practice to conventional management. We found that introducing perennials (grasses, agroforestry, managed forestry) or cover crops led to the largest increases in infiltration rates (mean responses of 59.2 ± 20.9% and 34.8 ± 7.7%, respectively). Also, although the overall effect of no-till was non-significant (5.7 ± 9.7%), the practice led to increases in wetter climates and when combined with residue retention. The effect of crop rotation on infiltration rate was non-significant (18.5 ± 13.2%), and studies evaluating impacts of grazing on croplands indicated that this practice reduced infiltration rates (-21.3 ± 14.9%). Findings suggest that practices promoting ground cover and continuous roots, both of which improve soil structure, were most effective at increasing infiltration rates.
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
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 1×
“Response ratios (LRR) represented the natural log of the infiltration rate measured in the experimental treatment divided by the infiltration rate measured in the control treatment (Eq 1) [43].”
Soil structure and management: a review
Bronick, C. J., & Lal, R. (2005) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005 · Cited by 4,463
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S., & Denef, K. (2004) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2004.03.008 · Cited by 4,410
Paustian, K., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., & Smith, P. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17174 · Cited by 2,213
An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily Database
Menne, M. J., Durre, I., Vose, R. S., Gleason, B. E., & Houston, T. G. (2012) · Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-11-00103.1 · Cited by 1,993
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
Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – A meta-analysis
Poeplau, C., & Don, A. (2015) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024 · Cited by 1,651
Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation
Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2292 · Cited by 901
St-Pierre, N. R. (2001) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(01)74530-4 · Cited by 846 · cited 1×
“a single study included multiple tillage practices or multiple cover crop treatments using different species) [46].”
BackgroundMcDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K., & Grandy, A. S. (2014) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/13-0616.1 · Cited by 846
Cited by
Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services
Beillouin, D., Ben‐Ari, T., Malézieux, E., Seufert, V., & Makowski, D. (2021) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15747 · Cited by 590
Rocci, K. S., Lavallee, J. M., Stewart, C. E., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148569 · Cited by 470
McClelland, S. C., Paustian, K., & Schipanski, M. E. (2021) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2278 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Basche, A. D., & DeLonge, M. S.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-09-19
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e0215702
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2973635979
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 3.71
- 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: Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0215702
- The paper
- Basche, A. D., & DeLonge, M. S. (2019). Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215702
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.