Conservation tillage enhances both organic and inorganic carbon in dryland: Insights from a 20-year field experiment and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation tillage is widely recognized as a promising practice for sequestering soil organic carbon (SOC). However, its impact on soil inorganic carbon (SIC) remains less understood and has seldom been quantified. This study aimed to examine the effects of conservation tillage on soil carbon pools, focusing on SIC, by combining a 20-year field experiment in an arid-calcareous cropland of China with a meta-analysis of 76 pairwise data from 7 studies. The field experiment confirms that conservation tillage significantly increases carbon stock, with reduced tillage (RT) increasing SOC (25.09 %, 0–40 cm) and no-tillage (NT) increasing SIC (10.67 %, 0–20 cm). SOC and SIC exhibit a complementary relationship, whereby an increase in SOC effectively compensates for reduced SIC within RT. Notably, the proliferation of calcifying bacteria (e.g., Bacillus ) and reduced urease activity suggest that microbial-induced carbonate precipitation, a process known to be facilitated by these bacteria, may contribute significantly to SIC formation under NT. Agronomic practices, as well as soil abiotic and biotic factors, collectively influence SIC. The relative importance of these factors varies with soil depth: biotic variables effects weaken with depth, while abiotic variables increase. Furthermore, our meta-analysis reveals that the response of SIC to conservation tillage varies with climatic, edaphic, and agronomic factors. Arid regions benefit the most from NT in enhancing SIC stock (3.27 %). These findings provide valuable insights into how conservation tillage influences soil carbon, particularly SIC, and enhance our understanding of carbon dynamics in arid systems. ● Conservation tillage significantly improves soil properties in arid alkaline cropland. ● Reduced tillage develops soil organic carbon, while no-tillage (NT) increases soil inorganic carbon (SIC). ● NT is associated with an increase in ureolytic microbial abundance, potentially promoting carbonate precipitation. ● SIC is influenced by both biotic and abiotic factors. ● NT is a pivotal strategy for enhancing SIC sequestration in dryland agriculture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".