The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Changes in soil carbon under long-term maize in monoculture and legume-based rotation
Open accessAbstract
Legume-based cropping systems could help to increase crop productivity and soil organic matter levels, thereby enhancing soil quality, as well as having the additional benefit of sequestering atmospheric C. To evaluate the effects of 35 yr of maize monoculture and legume-based cropping on soil C levels and residue retention, we measured organic C and 13 C natural abundance in soils under: fertilized and unfertilized maize (Zea mays L.), both in monoculture and legume-based [maize-oat (Avena sativa L.)-alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)-alfalfa] rotations; fertilized and unfertilized systems of continuous grass (Poa pratensis L.); and under forest. Solid state 13 C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) was used to chemically characterize the organic matter in plant residues and soils. Soils (70-cm depth) under maize cropping had about 30-40% less C, and those under continuous grass had about 16% less C, than those under adjacent forest. Qualitative differences in crop residues were important in these systems, because quantitative differences in net primary productivity and C inputs in the different agroecosystems did not account for observed differences in total soil C. Cropping sequence (i.e., rotation or monoculture) had a greater effect on soil C levels than application of fertilizer. The difference in soil C levels between rotation and monoculture maize systems was about 20 Mg C ha-1. The effects of fertilization on soil C were small (~6 Mg C ha-1), and differences were observed only in the monoculture system. The NMR results suggest that the chemical composition of organic matter was little affected by the nature of crop residues returned to the soil. The total quantity of maize-derived soil C was different in each system, because the quantity of maize residue returned to the soil was different; hence the maize-derived soil C ranged from 23 Mg ha-1 in the fertilized and 14 Mg ha-1 in the unfertilized monoculture soils (i.e., after 35 maize crops) to 6-7 Mg ha-1 in both the fertilized and unfertilized legume-based rotation soils (i.e., after eight maize crops). The proportion of maize residue C returned to the soil and retained as soil organic C (i.e., Mg maize-derived soil C/Mg maize residue) was about 14% for all maize cropping systems. The quantity of C3-C below the plow layer in legume-based rotation was 40% greater than that in monoculture and about the same as that under either continuous grass or forest. The soil organic matter below the plow layer in soil under the legume-based rotation appeared to be in a more biologically resistant form (i.e., higher aromatic C content) compared with that under monoculture. The retention of maize residue C as soil organic matter was four to five times greater below the plow layer than that within the plow layer. We conclude that residue quality plays a key role in increasing the retention of soil C in agroecosystems and that soils under legume-based rotation tend to be more “preservative” of residue C inputs, particularly from root inputs, than soils under monoculture. Key words: Soil carbon, 13 C natural abundance, 13 C nuclear magnetic resonance, maize cropping, legumes, root carbon
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
Management effects on soil C storage on the Canadian prairies
Janzen, H. H., Campbell, C. A., Izaurralde, R. C., Ellert, B. H., Juma, N., McGill, W. B., & Zentner, R. P. (1998) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/s0167-1987(98)00105-6 · Cited by 411
Changes in organic carbon and nitrogen of Morrow plot soils under different treatments, 1904-1973
ODELL, R. T., MELSTED, S. W., & WALKER, W. M. (1984) · Soil Science · doi:10.1097/00010694-198403000-00005 · Cited by 125
Cited by
Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change
Lal, R. (2004) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032 · Cited by 3,936
Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis
West, T. O., & Post, W. M. (2002) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2002.1930 · Cited by 2,215
Increasing organic stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations
Chenu, C., Angers, D. A., Barré, P., Derrien, D., Arrouays, D., & Balesdent, J. (2019) · Soil and Tillage Research · doi:10.1016/j.still.2018.04.011 · Cited by 733
Global Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect
Lal, R. (2003) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/713610854 · Cited by 543
Bowles, T. M., Mooshammer, M., Socolar, Y., Calderón, F., Cavigelli, M. A., Culman, S. W., Deen, W., Drury, C. F., Garcia y Garcia, A., Gaudin, A. C. M., et al. (2020) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.007 · Cited by 526
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gregorich, E. G., Drury, C. F., & Baldock, J. A.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Soil Science
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2001-02-01
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-31
- ISSN
- 0008-4271 (ISSN-L)
- 1918-1841
- OpenAlex
- W2016141187
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.99
- 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: Changes in soil carbon under long-term maize in monoculture and legume-based rotation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4141/s00-041
- The paper
- Gregorich, E. G., Drury, C. F., & Baldock, J. A. (2001). Changes in soil carbon under long-term maize in monoculture and legume-based rotation. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.4141/s00-041
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.