Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 458

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond conservation agriculture

Open access
Giller, Ken E., Andersson, Jens A., Corbeels, Marc, Kirkegaard, John, Mortensen, David, Erenstein, Olaf, Vanlauwe, Bernard·2015·Frontiers in Plant Science
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.00870
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Global support for Conservation Agriculture (CA) as a pathway to Sustainable Intensification is strong. CA revolves around three principles: no-till (or minimal soil disturbance), soil cover, and crop rotation. The benefits arising from the ease of crop management, energy/cost/time savings, and soil and water conservation led to widespread adoption of CA, particularly on large farms in the Americas and Australia, where farmers harness the tools of modern science: highly-sophisticated machines, potent agrochemicals, and biotechnology. Over the past 10 years CA has been promoted among smallholder farmers in the (sub-) tropics, often with disappointing results. Growing evidence challenges the claims that CA increases crop yields and builds-up soil carbon although increased stability of crop yields in dry climates is evident. Our analyses suggest pragmatic adoption on larger mechanized farms, and limited uptake of CA by smallholder farmers in developing countries. We propose a rigorous, context-sensitive approach based on Systems Agronomy to analyze and explore sustainable intensification options, including the potential of CA. There is an urgent need to move beyond dogma and prescriptive approaches to provide soil and crop management options for farmers to enable the Sustainable Intensification of agriculture.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpls.2015.00870

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 108 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bhathal, 2001, Ability of retained stubble to carry-over leaf diseases of wheat in rotation crops, Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 41, 649, 10.1071/EA00134 · doi:10.1071/ea00134
  2. Bryant, 2013, Counting Cover Crops
  3. Buffet, 2012, Correspondence - reaping the benefits of no-tillage farming, Nature, 484, 455, 10.1038/484455a · doi:10.1038/484455a
  4. Buhler, 1995, Influence of tillage systems on weed population-dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA, Crop Sci., 35, 1247, 10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183X003500050001x · doi:10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183x003500050001x
  5. Burgess, 2001, Crown rot of wheat, 271
  6. Cannell, 1985, Reduced tillage in north-west Europe - a review, Soil Till. Res., 5, 129, 10.1016/0167-1987(85)90028-5 · doi:10.1016/0167-1987(85)90028-5
  7. Dudal, 2002, Forty years of soil fertility work in sub-Saharan Africa, 7
  8. Egan, 2014, Herbicide-resistant crop biotechnology: potential and pitfalls, 143, 10.1007/978-3-319-06892-3_12 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06892-3_12
  9. 2015, Conservation Agriculture
  10. Faulkner, 1943, Plowman's Folly.
  11. Gilbert, 2012, Dirt poor, Nature, 483, 525, 10.1038/483525a · doi:10.1038/483525a
  12. Heenan, 1994, Long term effects of rotation, tillage and stubble management on wheat production in southern N.S.W, Aust. J. Agric. Res., 45, 93, 10.1071/AR9940093 · doi:10.1071/ar9940093
  13. 2013, Conservation Agriculture: Global Prospects and Challenges.
  14. Joel, 1937, Conditions in the so-called dust bowl as revealed by a recent soil conservation survey, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 1, 343, 10.2136/sssaj1937.03615995000100000061x · doi:10.2136/sssaj1937.03615995000100000061x
  15. Jones, 2000, Comparison of conservation tillage systems in barley-based cropping systems in Northern Syria, Exp. Agric., 36, 15, 10.1017/S0014479700361026 · doi:10.1017/s0014479700361026
  16. LeBaron, 2008, The triazine herbicides: a milestone in the development of weed control technology, 1, 10.1016/B978-044451167-6.50004-0 · doi:10.1016/b978-044451167-6.50004-0
  17. Pala, 2000, Tillage systems and stubble management in a Mediterranean-type environment in relation to crop yield and soil moisture, Exp. Agric., 36, 223, 10.1017/S0014479700002052 · doi:10.1017/s0014479700002052
  18. Simpfendorfer, 2004, Impact of tillage on lupin growth and the incidence of pathogenic fungi in southern New South Wales, Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 44, 53, 10.1071/EA03140 · doi:10.1071/ea03140
  19. UNEP, 2013, The Emissions Gap Report 2013.
  20. USDA – National Agricultural Statistics Service, (NASS), 1970–2008, Crops U.S. State County Databases.
  21. USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010, National Resources Inventory: Summary Report.
  22. Wolfarth, 2011, Earthworms promote the reduction of Fusarium biomass and deoxynivalenol content in wheat straw under field conditions, Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, 1858, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.05.002 · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.05.002

Cited by

See all 458

Metadata

Authors
Giller, K. E., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D., Erenstein, O., & Vanlauwe, B.
Venue
Frontiers in Plant Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2015-10-28
Volume
6
Pages
870-870
ISSN
1664-462X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpls.2015.00870
OpenAlex
W2136201502
Cited by
458
References
108
FWCI
32.29
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: Beyond conservation agriculture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpls.2015.00870
The paper
Giller, K. E., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D., Erenstein, O., & Vanlauwe, B. (2015). Beyond conservation agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00870

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.