/
Blog Posts
Data extracted in September 2022
Fiche created in November 2023
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of CROP RESIDUE MANAGEMENT found in a review of 42 synthesis papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 555 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 17 to 447. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
- Description:
- Crop residue management is the handling of stems, leaves, chaff and husks that remain in the fields after crops are harvested for grain, seed or fiber. Main strategies for crop residue management involve residue retention at the surface, residue incorporation into the soil and rice residue burning.[2]
- Key descriptors:
- This review includes the following crop residue management techniques: 1) crop residue retention (crop residue are left in the field after harvest), including crop residue retention and pruning residues retention; 2) crop residue incorporation into the soil (shallow and deep incorporation; 3) specific techniques for straw residue management, including additional straw application (beyond residue left by the crop), rice straw burned in paddy rice, and straw returning amended with straw decomposing microorganism inoculants.
- This review does not include: 1) residue management techniques that are applied in other land uses that are not cropland; 2) Straw mulching. The impacts of straw mulching are evaluated in separate sets of fiches (Mulching).
2. EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
We reviewed the impacts of crop residue management, including three group of interventions: crop residue retention compared to crop residue removal (Table 1a), crop residue incorporation into the soil compared to crop residue removal (Table 1b) and specific techniques for straw management (Table 1c).
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects. Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 42 selected synthesis papers, 28 included studies conducted in Europe, and 41 have a quality score higher than 50%.
Table 1a: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | NH3 emissions | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Air pollutants emissions | NO emissions | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Carbon sequestration | Soil organic carbon | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 13 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Pruning residue retention | Pruning residue not returned to the soil | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease GHG emissions | CH4 emission | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
N2O emission | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | |
Decrease Nutrient leaching and run-off | Nitrogen leaching and run-off | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Pests and diseases | Pests and diseases | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Plant nutrient uptake | Nutrient uptake | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increase Plant nutrient uptake | Nutrient use efficiency | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Increase Soil biological quality | Soil biological quality | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 8 | 2 | 6 | 0 |
Decrease Soil erosion | Soil erosion | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 2 (1) | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil nutrients | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Increase Soil physico-chemical quality | Soil physico-chemical quality | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increase Soil water retention | Soil water retention | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Water use | Water use efficiency | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Crop yield | Crop yield | Crop residue retention | Crop residue removal | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Table 1b: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Decrease GHG emissions | N2O emission | Crop residue incorporation into the soil | Crop residue surface-applied | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Crop residue removal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
Increase Plant nutrient uptake | Nutrient use efficiency | Crop residue incorporation into the soil | Crop residue removal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Decrease Water use | Water use | Crop residue incorporation into the soil | Crop residue removal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Water use efficiency | Crop residue incorporation into the soil | Crop residue removal | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Increase Crop yield | Crop yield | Crop residue incorporation into the soil | Crop residue removal | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Table 1c: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Increase Carbon sequestration | Soil organic carbon | Additional straw application | Crop straw retention | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease GHG emissions | CH4 emission | Rice straw burning | Rice straw retention | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil nutrients | Straw Returning Amended with Straw Decomposing Microorganism Inoculants | Straw Returning without Decomposing Microorganism Inoculants | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Air pollutants emissions | Climate (Ref40), Cropping system type (Ref17), Mineral N fertiliser application rate (Ref17), Soil texture (Ref40), Straw addition rate (Ref40) and Straw C/N ratio (Ref40) |
Carbon sequestration | Crop rotation (Ref30), Crop type (Ref30), Duration of litter removal (Ref22), Duration of treatment (Ref30, Ref35, Ref40), fertilisation (Ref20), Intercropping (Ref35), Mineral N fertiliser amount applied (Ref30), Proportion of residues retained (Ref30, Ref35), Sampling depth (Ref30, Ref35), SOC reporting method (Ref35), Soil chemical, biological, and physical quality (Ref30), Soil organic carbon (Ref35), Straw addition rate (Ref40) and Tillage (Ref4, Ref30) |
GHG emissions | Climate (Ref13, Ref32, Ref40), Crop rotation (Ref30), Crop type (Ref30, Ref32, Ref40), Cropping system type (Ref39), Duration of treatment (Ref30, Ref32), Fertliser type (Ref2), Mineral N fertiliser amount applied (Ref30, Ref32), Proportion of residues retained (Ref30), Residue C/N ratio (Ref25), Residue type (Ref3), Soil clay content (Ref13), Soil organic carbon (Ref32), Soil pH (Ref13), Soil texture (Ref32, Ref40), Straw addition rate (Ref40), Straw C/N ratio (Ref32, Ref40), Straw N rate (Ref3) and Tillage intensity (Ref30) |
Nutrient leaching and run-off | Climate (Ref13), Cropping system type (Ref39), Mineral fertiliser addition (Ref13), Soil organic carbon (Ref40), Soil pH (Ref13), Soil texture (Ref13), Straw addition rate (Ref40) and Type of application (Ref40) |
Plant nutrient uptake | Climate (Ref40), Mean annual precipitation (Ref40), Soil organic carbon (Ref40), Straw addition rate (Ref40) and Straw C/N ratio (Ref40) |
Soil biological quality | Climate (Ref41), Cropping system type (Ref34, Ref39), Geographical area (Ref41), Soil carbon sequestration (Ref30), Soil organic carbon (Ref34), Soil pH (Ref34), Time since treatment (Ref34 and Ref41) |
Soil nutrients | Climate (Ref8), Crop rotation (Ref30), Crop type (Ref8, Ref30), Cropping system type (Ref8, Ref39), Duration of treatment (Ref30), Mineral fertiliser addition (Ref39), Mineral N fertiliser amount applied (Ref30), Proportion of residues retained (Ref30), Sampling depth (Ref30), Soil organic carbon (Ref8), Soil pH (Ref8), Soil properties (Ref30), Straw addition rate (Ref39), Straw C/N ratio (Ref8), Straw N rate (Ref40), Straw type (Ref8), Tillage (Ref4), Tillage intensity (Ref30) and Type of application (Ref39) |
Soil physico-chemical quality | Crop rotation (Ref30), Crop type (Ref30), Duration of treatment (Ref30), Mineral N fertiliser amount applied (Ref30), Proportion of residues retained (Ref30), Sampling depth (Ref30), Soil physical properties (Ref30), Tillage intensity (Ref30) and Time since treatment (Ref33) |
Soil water retention | Soil physical properties (Ref30) |
Water use | Crop type (Ref28), Mean annual temperature (Ref28), Mineral N fertiliser amount applied (Ref28) and Soil organic carbon (Ref28) |
Crop yield | Climate (Ref28, Ref40), Crop type (Ref28, Ref30), Cropping system type (Ref28), Duration of treatment (Ref28, Ref30, Ref39, Ref40), Fertliser type (Ref28), Irrigation method (Ref28), Mineral fertiliser addition (Ref39), Mineral N fertiliser amount applied (Ref28, Ref30), Proportion of residues retained (Ref30), Soil N, P and organic carbon (Ref30), Soil texture (Ref40), Straw addition rate (Ref39), Tillage (Ref28) and Tillage intensity (Ref30) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: ("crop residue*" OR "residue* from crop*" OR "field residue*" OR "plant residue*" OR "agricult* residue*" OR "legume residue*" OR "pruning residue*" OR "plant litter" OR "straw" OR "stubble*" OR "residue* retention" OR "residue* return" OR "residue* burning" OR "residue* incorporation" OR "mulch*" ) (All Fields) AND ( "meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") (All Fields) |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | Web of Science and Scopus: run on 27 September 2022 |
Exclusion criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 | Lv L., Gao Z., Liao K., Zhu Q., Zhu J. | 2023 | Impact of conservation tillage on the distribution of soil nutrients with depth | SOIL AND TILLAGE RESEARCH, 225, 105527. | 10.1016/j.still.2022.105527 |
Ref2 | Abalos D., Recous S., Butterbach-Bahl K., De Notaris C., Rittl T.F., Topp C.F.E., Petersen S.O., Hansen S., Bleken M.A., Rees R.M., Olesen J.E. | 2022 | A review and meta-analysis of mitigation measures for nitrous oxide emissions from crop residues | SCIENCE OF TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 828, 154388. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154388 |
Ref3 | Abalos D., Rittl T.F., Recous S., Thiébeau P., Topp C.F.E., van Groenigen K.J., Butterbach-Bahl K., Thorman R.E., Smith K.E., Ahuja I., Olesen J.E., Bleken M.A., Rees R.M., Hansen S. | 2022 | Predicting field N2O emissions from crop residues based on their biochemical composition: A meta-analytical approach | SCIENCE OF TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 812, 152532. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152532 |
Ref4 | Bohoussou Y.N., Kou Y.-H., Yu W.-B., Lin B.-J., Virk A.L., Zhao X., Dang Y.P., Zhang H.-L. | 2022 | Impacts of the components of conservation agriculture on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen storage: A global meta-analysis | SCIENCE OF TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 842, 156822. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156822 |
Ref5 | Dang P., Li C., Lu C., Zhang M., Huang T., Wan C., Wang H., Chen Y., Qin X., Liao Y., Siddique K.H.M. | 2022 | Effect of fertiliser management on the soil bacterial community in agroecosystems across the globe | AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 326, 107795. | 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107795 |
Ref6 | Du X., Jian J., Du C., Stewart R.D. | 2022 | Conservation management decreases surface runoff and soil erosion | INTERNATIONAL SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION RESEARCH, 10(2), 188-196. | 10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.08.001 |
Ref7 | Gu X., Weng S., Li Y., Zhou X. | 2022 | Effects of Water and fertiliser Management Practices on Methane Emissions from Paddy Soils: Synthesis and Perspective | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 19(12), 7324. | 10.3390/ijerph19127324 |
Ref8 | He, ZF; Yang, XR; Xiang, J; Wu, ZL; Shi, XY; Gui, Y; Liu, MQ; Kalkhajeh, YK; Gao, HJ; Ma, C | 2022 | Does Straw Returning Amended with Straw Decomposing Microorganism Inoculants Increase the Soil Major Nutrients in China's Farmlands? | AGRONOMY, 12(4), 890. | 10.3390/agronomy12040890 |
Ref9 | Liu B.-Y., Liu W.-S., Lin B.-J., Liu W.-X., Han S.-W., Zhao X., Zhang H.-L. | 2022 | Sustainable management practices to improve the water use efficiency of winter wheat in the North China Plain: a meta-analysis | AGRONOMY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 42, 33. | 10.1007/s13593-022-00766-8 |
Ref10 | Yang P., Dong W., Heinen M., Qin W., Oenema O. | 2022 | Soil Compaction Prevention, Amelioration and Alleviation Measures Are Effective in Mechanized and Smallholder Agriculture: A Meta-Analysis | LAND, 11(5), 645. | 10.3390/land11050645 |
Ref11 | Zhang F., Chen X., Yao S., Ye Y., Zhang B. | 2022 | Responses of soil mineral-associated and particulate organic carbon to carbon input: A meta-analysis | SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 829, 154626. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154626 |
Ref12 | Gross A., Glaser B. | 2021 | Meta‐analysis on how manure application changes soil organic carbon storage | SCIENTIFIC REPORT, 11, 5516. | 10.1038/s41598-021-82739-7 |
Ref13 | Li, ZJ; Reichel, R; Xu, ZF; Vereecken, H; Bruggemann, N | 2021 | Return of crop residues to arable land stimulates N2O emission but mitigates NO3- leaching: a meta-analysis | AGRONOMY FOR SUSTAINABE DEVELOPMENT, 41(5), 66. | 10.1007/s13593-021-00715-x |
Ref14 | Liu B.-Y., Lin B.-J., Li X.-X., Virk A.L., N'dri Yves B., Zhao X., Dang Y.P., Zhang H.-L. | 2021 | Appropriate farming practices of summer maize in the North China Plain: Reducing nitrogen use to promote sustainable agricultural development | RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 175, 105889. | 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105889 |
Ref15 | Payen F.T., Sykes A., Aitkenhead M., Alexander P., Moran D., MacLeod M. | 2021 | Soil organic carbon sequestration rates in vineyard agroecosystems under different soil management practices: A meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 290, 125736. | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125736 |
Ref16 | Qin X., Huang T., Lu C., Dang P., Zhang M., Guan X.-K., Wen P.-F., Wang T.-C., Chen Y., Siddique K.H.M. | 2021 | Benefits and limitations of straw mulching and incorporation on maize yield, water use efficiency, and nitrogen use efficiency | AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 256, 107128. | 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107128 |
Ref17 | Sha Z., Liu H., Wang J., Ma X., Liu X., TomMisselbrook | 2021 | Improved soil-crop system management aids in NH3 emission mitigation in China | ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 289, 117844. | 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117844 |
Ref18 | Shang Z., Abdalla M., Xia L., Zhou F., Sun W., Smith P. | 2021 | Can cropland management practices lower net greenhouse emissions without compromising yield? | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 27(19), 4657-4670. | 10.1111/gcb.15796 |
Ref19 | Wang Q., Cao X., Jiang H., Guo Z. | 2021 | Straw Application and Soil Microbial Biomass Carbon Change: A Meta-Analysis | CLEAN - SOIL, AIR, WATER , 49(2), 2000386. | 10.1002/clen.202000386 |
Ref20 | Wang Q., Liu X., Li J., Yang X., Guo Z. | 2021 | Straw application and soil organic carbon change: A meta-analysis | SOIL AND WATER RESEARCH, 16, 112-120. | 10.17221/155/2020-SWR |
Ref21 | Xia Y., Wander M. | 2021 | Responses of β-glucosidase, permanganate oxidizable carbon, and fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis to conservation practices | SOIL SCIENCES SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 85(5), 1649-1662. | 10.1002/saj2.20261 |
Ref22 | Xu S., Sayer E.J., Eisenhauer N., Lu X., Wang J., Liu C. | 2021 | Aboveground litter inputs determine carbon storage across soil profiles: a meta-analysis | PLANT AND SOIL, 462, 429-444. | 10.1007/s11104-021-04881-5 |
Ref23 | Yangjin D., Wu X., Bai H., Gu J. | 2021 | A meta-analysis of management practices for simultaneously mitigating N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils | SOIL AND TILLAGE RESEARCH, 213, 105142. | 10.1016/j.still.2021.105142 |
Ref24 | Abdalla K., Mutema M., Hill T. | 2020 | Soil and organic carbon losses from varying land uses: a global meta-analysis | GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, 58, 167-185. | 10.1111/1745-5871.12389 |
Ref25 | Essich L., Nkebiwe P.M., Schneider M., Ruser R. | 2020 | Is crop residue removal to reduce n2o emissions driven by quality or quantity? A field study and meta-analysis | AGRICULTURE, 10, 546 | 10.3390/agriculture10110546 |
Ref26 | Liu B.-Y., Zhao X., Li S.-S., Zhang X.-Z., Virk A.L., Qi J.-Y., Kan Z.-R., Wang X., Ma S.-T., Zhang H.-L. | 2020 | Meta-analysis of management-induced changes in nitrogen use efficiency of winter wheat in the North China Plain | JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 251, 119632. | 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119632 |
Ref27 | Li Y., Zhang Q., Cai Y., Yang Q., Chang S.X. | 2020 | Minimum tillage and residue retention increase soil microbial population size and diversity: Implications for conservation tillage | SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 716, 137164. | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137164 |
Ref28 | Lu X. | 2020 | A meta-analysis of the effects of crop residue return on crop yields and water use efficiency | PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0231740. | 10.1371/journal.pone.0231740 |
Ref29 | Peiris P.U.S., Li Y., Brown P., Xu C. | 2020 | Efficacy of organic amendments to control Meloidogyne spp. in crops: a systematic review and meta-analysis | JOURNAL OF SOILS AND SEDIMENTS, 20(3), 1584-1598. | 10.1007/s11368-019-02498-x |
Ref30 | Zhao X., Liu B.-Y., Liu S.-L., Qi J.-Y., Wang X., Pu C., Li S.-S., Zhang X.-Z., Yang X.-G., Lal R., Chen F., Zhang H.-L. | 2020 | Sustaining crop production in China's cropland by crop residue retention: A meta-analysis | LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 31(6), 694-709. | 10.1002/ldr.3492 |
Ref31 | Zheng H., Shao R., Xue Y., Ying H., Yin Y., Cui Z., Yang Q. | 2020 | Water productivity of irrigated maize production systems in Northern China: A meta-analysis | AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 234, 106119. | 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106119 |
Ref32 | Hu N., Chen Q., Zhu L. | 2019 | The responses of soil N2O emissions to residue returning systems: A meta-analysis | SUSTAINABILITY, 11(3), 748. | 10.3390/su11030748 |
Ref33 | Li Y., Li Z., Cui S., Jagadamma S., Zhang Q. | 2019 | Residue retention and minimum tillage improve physical environment of the soil in croplands: A global meta-analysis | SOIL AND TILLAGE RESEARCH, 194, 104292. | 10.1016/j.still.2019.06.009 |
Ref34 | Miao F., Li Y., Cui S., Jagadamma S., Yang G., Zhang Q. | 2019 | Soil extracellular enzyme activities under long-term fertilisation management in the croplands of China: a meta-analysis | NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS, 114, 125–138. | 10.1007/s10705-019-09991-2 |
Ref35 | Xu H., Sieverding H., Kwon H., Clay D., Stewart C., Johnson J.M.F., Qin Z., Karlen D.L., Wang M. | 2019 | A global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon response to corn stover removal | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY & BIOENERGY, 11(10), 1215-1233. | 10.1111/gcbb.12631 |
Ref36 | Chen, YS; Camps-Arbestain, M; Shen, QH; Singh, B; Cayuela, ML | 2018 | The long-term role of organic amendments in building soil nutrient fertility: a meta-analysis and review | NUTRIENT CYCLING IN AGROECOSYSTEMS, 111, 103-125. | 10.1007/s10705-017-9903-5 |
Ref37 | Ding, WC; Xu, XP; He, P; Ullah, S; Zhang, JJ; Cui, ZL; Zhou, W | 2018 | Improving yield and nitrogen use efficiency through alternative fertilisation options for rice in China: A meta-analysis | FIELD CROPS RESEARCH, 227, 11–18. | 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.08.001 |
Ref38 | Linquist B.A., Marcos M., Arlene Adviento-Borbe M., Anders M., Harrell D., Linscombe S., Reba M.L., Runkle B.R.K., Tarpley L., Thomson A. | 2018 | Greenhouse gas emissions and management practices that affect emissions in US rice systems | JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 47(3), 395-409. | 10.2134/jeq2017.11.0445 |
Ref39 | Wang M., Pendall E., Fang C., Li B., Nie M. | 2018 | A global perspective on agroecosystem nitrogen cycles after returning crop residue | AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 266, 49-54. | 10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.019 |
Ref40 | Xia L., Lam S.K., Wolf B., Kiese R., Chen D., Butterbach-Bahl K. | 2018 | Trade-offs between soil carbon sequestration and reactive nitrogen losses under straw return in global agroecosystems | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 24(12), 5919-5932. | 10.1111/gcb.14466 |
Ref41 | Zhang Q., Miao F., Wang Z., Shen Y., Wang G. | 2017 | Effects of long-term fertilisation management practices on soil microbial biomass in China’s cropland: A meta-analysis | AGRONOMY, 109 (4), 1183-1195. | 10.2134/agronj2016.09.0553 |
Ref42 | Pan B., Lam S.K., Mosier A., Luo Y., Chen D. | 2016 | Ammonia volatilization from synthetic fertilisers and its mitigation strategies: A global synthesis | AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 232, 283-289. | 10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.019 |
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] Reicosky and Wilts, 2005. (https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00254-X)