Cited by 213Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldAgricultural Science and Fertilization

Impact of Nitrogen Fertilization and Cropping System on Carbon Sequestration in Midwestern Mollisols

Open access
Russell, A. E., Laird, D. A., Parkin, T. B., Mallarino, A. P.·2005·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Growing interest in the potential for agricultural soils to provide a sink for atmospheric C has prompted studies of effects of management on soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration. We analyzed the impact on SOC of four N fertilization rates (0–270 kg N ha −1 ) and four cropping systems: continuous corn (CC) ( Zea mays L.); corn–soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (CS); corn–corn–oat–alfalfa (oat, Avena sativa L.; alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.) (CCOA), and corn–oat–alfalfa–alfalfa (COAA). Soils were sampled in 2002, Years 23 and 48 of the experiments located in northeast and north‐central Iowa, respectively. The experiments were conducted using a replicated split‐plot design under conventional tillage. A native prairie was sampled to provide a reference (for one site only). Cropping systems that contained alfalfa had the highest SOC stocks, whereas the CS system generally had the lowest SOC stocks. Concentrations of SOC increased significantly between 1990 and 2002 in only two of the nine systems for which historical data were available, the fertilized CC and COAA systems at one site. Soil quality indices such as particulate organic carbon (POC) were influenced by cropping system, with CS < CC < CCOA. In the native prairie, SOC, POC, and resistant C concentrations were 2.8, 2.6, and 3.9 times, respectively, the highest values in cropped soil, indicating that cultivated soils had not recovered to precultivation conditions. Although corn yields increased with N additions, N fertilization increased SOC stocks only in the CC system at one site. Considering the C cost for N fertilizer production, N fertilization generally had a net negative effect on C sequestration.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2005.0413

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Russell, A. E., Laird, D. A., Parkin, T. B., & Mallarino, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
Corresponding author
Russell, A. E.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-03
Volume
69
Issue
2
Pages
413-422
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2092299317
Cited by
213
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
12.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
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 › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
Keywords
soil organic carbon sequestration, nitrogen fertilization, cropping systems, Mollisols, alfalfa, corn-soybean rotation, continuous corn, particulate organic carbon, native prairie, conventional tillage, maize yield, Iowa

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