Cited by 89Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldSoil erosion and sediment transport

Tillage and crop rotation effects on dryland soil and residue carbon and nitrogen

Sainju, Upendra M., Lenssen, Andrew, Caesar-Tonthat, Thecan, Waddell, Jed·2006·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Sustainable management practices are needed to enhance soil productivity in degraded dryland soils in the northern Great Plains. We examined the effects of two tillage practices [conventional till (CT) and no‐till (NT)], five crop rotations [continuous spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) (CW), spring wheat‐fallow (W‐F), spring wheat‐lentil ( Lens culinaris Medic.) (W‐L), spring wheat‐spring wheat‐fallow (W‐W‐F), and spring wheat‐pea ( Pisum sativum L.)‐fallow (W‐P‐F)], and a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on plant biomass returned to the soil, residue C and N, and soil organic C (SOC), soil total N (STN), and particulate organic C and N (POC and PON) at the 0‐ to 20‐cm depth. A field experiment was conducted in a mixture of Scobey clay loam (fine, smectitic, frigid Aridic Argiustolls) and Kevin clay loam (fine‐loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Aridic Argiustolls) from 1998 to 2003 near Havre, MT. Mean annualized plant biomass returned to the soil from 1998 to 2003 was greater in W‐F (2.02 Mg ha −1 ) than in W‐L and W‐W‐F, regardless of tillage. In 2004, residue cover was greater in CW (60%) than in other rotations, except in W‐W‐F. Residue amount and C and N contents were greater in NT with CW (2.47 Mg ha −1 and 963 and 22 kg ha −1 , respectively) than in NT with W‐L and CT with other crop rotations. The POC at 0 to 5 cm was greater in W‐W‐F and W‐P‐F (2.1–2.2 Mg ha −1 ) than in W‐L. Similarly, STN at 5 to 20 cm was greater in CT with W‐L (2.21 Mg ha −1 ) than in other treatments, except in NT with W‐W‐F. Reduced tillage and increased cropping intensity, such as NT with CW and W‐L, conserved C and N in dryland soils and crop residue better than the traditional practice, CT with W‐F, and their contents were similar to or better than in CRP planting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2005.0089

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sainju, U. M., Lenssen, A., Caesar-Tonthat, T., & Waddell, J.
Affiliations
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • USDA‐ARS 1500 North Central Avenue Sidney MT 59270
Corresponding author
Sainju, Upendra M.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03
Volume
70
Issue
2
Pages
668-678
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W1998753009
Cited by
89
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
10.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
tillage, crop rotation, arid soils, soil organic carbon, soil nitrogen, crop residues, no-tillage, conventional tillage, Conservation Reserve Program, spring wheat, lentil, pea, fallow, particulate organic matter, soil carbon sequestration, Northern Great Plains, soil degradation, cropping intensity, residue cover, clay loam soil, sustainable soil management

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