Cited by 252Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldSoil erosion and sediment transport

Agricultural management and soil carbon storage in surface vs. deep layers

Syswerda, S.P., Corbin, A.T., Mokma, D.L., Kravchenko, A.N., Robertson, G.P.·2011·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

Soil C sequestration research has historically focused on the top 0 to 30 cm of the soil profile, ignoring deeper portions that might also respond to management. In this study we sampled soils along a 10‐treatment management intensity gradient to a 1‐m depth to test the hypothesis that C gains in surface soils are offset by losses lower in the profile. Treatments included four annual cropping systems in a corn ( Zea mays )‐soybean ( Glycine max )‐ wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) rotation, perennial alfalfa ( Medicago sativa ) and poplar ( Populus x euramericana ), and four unmanaged successional systems. The annual grain systems included conventionally tilled, no‐tillage, reduced‐input, and organic systems. Unmanaged treatments included a 12‐yr‐old early successional community, two 50‐yr‐old mid‐successional communities, and a mature forest never cleared for agriculture. All treatments were replicated three to six times and all cropping systems were 12 yr post‐establishment when sampled. Surface soil C concentrations and total C pools were significantly greater under no‐till, organic, early successional, never‐tilled mid‐successional, and deciduous forest systems than in the conventionally managed cropping system ( p ≤ 0.05, n = 3–6 replicate sites). We found no consistent differences in soil C at depth, despite intensive sampling (30–60 deep soil cores per treatment). Carbon concentrations in the B/Bt and Bt2/C horizons were lower and two and three times more variable, respectiv…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2009.0414

Cites

44 of 44 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
Syswerda, S. P., Corbin, A. T., Mokma, D. L., Kravchenko, A. N., & Robertson, G. P.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Washington State Cooperative Extension Everett WA 98208‐6353
Corresponding author
Syswerda, S.P.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01
Volume
75
Issue
1
Pages
92-101
ISSN
  • 0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0661
OpenAlex
W2109503707
Cited by
252
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
FWCI
17.49
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
soil carbon sequestration, soil depth, deep soil carbon, agricultural management, no-tillage, organic farming, conventional tillage, corn-soybean-wheat rotation, poplar, successional forest, carbon pools, soil horizons

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