The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corn yield response to winter cover crops: An updated meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Winter cover crops (WCCs) provide agronomic and environmental benefits, although their impacts on subsequent crop yields have been reported to vary across regions, soils, or under different farm practices. To address the variability in response, previous qualitative and quantitative reviews have summarized the overall yield effects of WCCs. However, the results from such reviews need constant revision as new research is published and interest in the conservation benefits of WCCs increases. Here, we update a previous meta-analysis of WCC effects on corn (Zea mays) yields, which summarized peer-reviewed research from the United Sates and Canada that was published between 1965 and 2004. Our updated data set (1965 to 2015) comprises 268 observations from 65 studies conducted in different regions of the United States and Canada, and includes information about the management practices utilized (i.e., WCC species, nitrogen [N] fertilization, termination date, tillage, etc.). The effect-size was the response ratio (RR), defined as corn yield following WCCs relative to yield after no cover crop (NC). As in the previous meta-analysis, our results showed a neutral to positive contribution of WCCs to corn yields. On average, grass WCCs neither increased nor decreased corn yields, although corn grown for grain yielded relatively higher than silage corn after grass WCCs. Legume WCCs resulted in subsequent higher corn yields by 30% to 33% when N fertilizer rates were low or the tillage system shifted from conventional tillage (CT) to no-tillage (NT). Mixture WCCs increased corn yields by 30% when the cover crop was late terminated (zero to six days before subsequent corn). Evidence of 65 years of research showed that uncertainty around the RR has decreased and corn yield response to WCCs has stabilized over time. Our results suggest that benefits of WCCs do not result in reduced corn productivity if properly managed.
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
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
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
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793
Mackay, A. (2008) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2008.0015br · Cited by 5,591
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256
Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., de Strihou, J.-P. V. Y., & Palutikof, J. P. (2007) · Cited by 2,783
A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation
Challinor, A. J., Watson, J., Lobell, D. B., Howden, S. M., Smith, D. R., & Chhetri, N. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2153 · Cited by 2,333 · cited 1×
“For instance, in reviewing worldwide crop yield responses to climate change, Challinor et al. (2014) updated a previous meta-analysis (IPCC 2007) and introduced more robust methods to capture yield responses to warming conditions not detected before.”
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11069 · Cited by 2,151
Cited by
Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & van Bavel, R. (2019) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/jbz019 · Cited by 1,050
Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Cheng, K., Yue, Q., Chadwick, D., Espenberg, M., Truu, J., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14644 · Cited by 747
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
Cover Crops Reduce Nitrate Leaching in Agroecosystems:A Global Meta‐Analysis
Thapa, R., Mirsky, S. B., & Tully, K. L. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2018.03.0107 · Cited by 377
McClelland, S. C., Paustian, K., & Schipanski, M. E. (2021) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1002/eap.2278 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Marcillo, G. S., & Miguez, F. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 226-239
- ISSN
- 0022-4561 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-3300
- OpenAlex
- W2609516000
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 86
- FWCI
- 15.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Corn yield response to winter cover crops: An updated meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2489/jswc.72.3.226
- The paper
- Marcillo, G. S., & Miguez, F. E. (2017). Corn yield response to winter cover crops: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.72.3.226
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.