2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.09.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of soybean cropping frequency on soil carbon storage in Mollisols and Vertisols

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
58
0
6

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
2
58
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…In both sites, the technology was unable to maintain existing SOC stocks. Novelli et al [69] found that the SOC storage was negatively associated with the soybean cropping frequency in the cropping sequences. After the introduction of agriculture in site A, there was a rapid loss of SOC (25%) during the first ten years, followed by a period with a lower loss (15%) in 23 years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In both sites, the technology was unable to maintain existing SOC stocks. Novelli et al [69] found that the SOC storage was negatively associated with the soybean cropping frequency in the cropping sequences. After the introduction of agriculture in site A, there was a rapid loss of SOC (25%) during the first ten years, followed by a period with a lower loss (15%) in 23 years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tendency of OC was NE>PAP>GAP (Table 2). High OC at both sampling depths of NE (data not shown) could be explained by the lack of disturbance and the presence of active roots the year-round (Novelli et al, 2011;Six, Elliott, Paustian, & Doran, 1998).…”
Section: Land-use Edaphic Properties and Active Diazotrophic Commmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Agricultural management in the extensive Pampa and Chaco plains of Argentina relies on no‐till farming (source: Aapresid, http://www.aapresid.org.ar) that accounts for about 27 million hectares, with an increasing simplification in crop sequence based mainly on soybean monoculture (DurĂĄn, MorrĂĄs, Studdert, & Liu, ; Viglizzo et al., ). Several adverse effects have been associated with this simplification such as lower organic carbon (OC), lower aggregate stability, modification of soil porosity due to a diminution of its total volume, as well as higher bulk density and development of platy structures (Chagas, Santanatoglia, Castiglioni, & Marelli, ; Novelli, Caviglia, & Melchiori, ; Novelli, Caviglia, Wilson, & Sasal, ; Sasal, Andriulo, & Taboada, ). Hence, the way soils are used in agriculture can deeply modify their architecture constitution (Pierce, Fortin, & Staton, ) with significant consequences on the soil structure and the soil–water interactions (Castiglioni, Behrends Kraemer, & Morras, ; Raynaud & Nunan, ; Reynolds, Bowman, Drury, Tana, & Lu, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some evidence from field experiments suggest that reducing fallow periods, or increasing CHF, increases soil carbon depending on the tillage adopted, fertilization and crop cycle in the United States [54,55]. In general however increased cropping frequency reduces soil organic carbon [56,57], the diversity of soil microbiota [58], arthropod [59], and other species [60] especially if higher CHF leads to conventional cropping [61,62] and landscape simplification [63]. Increased cropping frequency will also be accompanied with other agricultural inputs such as irrigation and fertilization [64], which could have impacts on water quality and aquatic ecosystems [65].…”
Section: Estimating the Potential For Increasing Harvest Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%