Soil carbon change in intensive agriculture after 25 years of conservation management

Córdova, S. C.; Kravchenko, A. N.; Miesel, J. R.; Robertson, G. P.

doi:10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2024.117133

BonaResKnowledge Library

Add a paper Sign in

All papers

Geoderma · 2025

Soil carbon change in intensive agriculture after 25 years of conservation management

Córdova, S. C., Kravchenko, A. N., Miesel, J. R., Robertson, G. P.

Read the paperSave

Export

Soil carbon change in intensive agriculture after 25 years o…

No abstract in the library.

Findings

What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property. The largest groups are open; open the others as you need them.

SON stocks

↑ 10= 919

no effect
No-till vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Wholeprofile; Fig1NTAB/ConvA; Table5gain0.4±0.2MgN/ha; proseallgainqualified.
Numbers

Similar papers

Soil carbon change in intensive agriculture after 25 years of conservation management · Knowledge Library

SOC stocks

↑ 7= 815

no effect
No-till vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Whole profile; Fig1NTAB/ConvA. Prose calls numerical gain4.5±2.5 after25years, not pairwise significant.
Numbers
- treatment 44.8 vs. control 40.3 Mg C ha-1 (+11.17 %)
Source · p. 7
“Whole-profile SOC gains (Table 5)”
Source · p. 6
“No-till system had higher SOC stocks (44.8 2.4 Mg C ha 1)”
increase
cover cropped systems (Reduced input and Biologically based) vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Whole profile, Fig1bothBC versusConvA; Table5stock differences, eachn6; not annualized repeated outcome.
Numbers
- mean_difference 11 · Reduced input; SE2.0, sixplots pergroup
- mean_difference 11.5 · Biologically based; SE2.1, sixplots pergroup
Source · p. 7
“Gains were intermediate in the Biologically based, Reduced input, and Poplar systems”
increase
managed perennial crops vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Wholeprofile; PoplarBC,AlfalfaCD,ConiferCD versusConvA; paper25-yearreference, coniferplanted1965.
Numbers
- mean_difference 10.9 · Poplar;SE2.1,n6pergroup
- mean_difference 15.5 · Alfalfa;SE2.2,n6pergroup
- mean_difference 17.4 · Conifer;SE4.1,n3versusn6
Source · p. 7
“Whole-profile SOC gains (Table 5) were highest in the Early successional, Conifer, and Alfalfa systems”
Source · p. 7
“Gains were intermediate in the Biologically based, Reduced input, and Poplar systems”
increase
Early successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Wholeprofile; EarlyCD versusConvA; abandonment plusannualburning.
Numbers
- mean_difference 18.8 · SE2.2,n6pergroup
Source · p. 7
“Whole-profile SOC gains (Table 5) were highest in the Early successional, Conifer, and Alfalfa systems”
no effect
Mid-successional vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Wholeprofile; Fig1MidAB/ConvA; gain6.8±3.3 numerical, notsignificant; abandonment1950s.
Numbers
- mean_difference 6.8 · SE3.3,n3versusn6
Source · p. 8
“successional systems, where 25-year gains were 4.5 and 6.8 Mg C ha 1, respectively.”
increase
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Wholeprofile; nativeforestE versusConvA; historicallandusecomparison, not25-yearforestintervention.
Numbers
- treatment 69.3 vs. control 40.3 Mg C ha-1 (+71.96 %)
Source · p. 12
“whole-profile SOC stocks ~42 % lower in the Conventional system”
increase
No-till vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 14 vs. control 11.5 Mg C ha-1 (+21.74 %)
Source · p. 6
“No-till was greater than Conventional only in this layer; at deeper depths the systems had similar SOC”
no effect
No-till vs. Conventionalnot significant · 10–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · All3depthpairs shareletters; no deep SOC loss.
Numbers
- treatment 13.8 vs. control 13.6 Mg C ha-1 (+1.471 %) · 10–25 cm
- treatment 9.1 vs. control 8.9 Mg C ha-1 (+2.247 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 7.8 vs. control 6.3 Mg C ha-1 (+23.81 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 6
“No-till was greater than Conventional only in this layer; at deeper depths the systems had similar SOC”
increase
Mid-successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Incremental stock; historical Mid-successional system, not a 25-year intervention. Surface increase despite nonsignificant integrated stock.
Numbers
- treatment 17.4 vs. control 11.5 Mg C ha-1 (+51.3 %) · 0–10 cm
Source · p. 6
“Within managed perennial and successional systems, SOC stocks in the 0–10 cm layer ranged from 17.4 to 31.2”
Source · p. 5
“17.4 | 1.1de”
Source · p. 5
“11.5 | 0.4a”
no effect
Mid-successional vs. Conventionalnot significant · 10–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Incremental stocks; depth qualification of surface increase, Table 2 shared letters at all three deeper layers.
Numbers
- treatment 11.9 vs. control 13.6 Mg C ha-1 (-12.5 %) · 10–25 cm
- treatment 9.5 vs. control 8.9 Mg C ha-1 (+6.742 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 8.3 vs. control 6.3 Mg C ha-1 (+31.75 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 5
“11.9 | 1.0a”
Source · p. 5
“13.6 | 0.7ab”
no effect
Poplar vs. Conventionalnot significant · 10–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Poplar incremental stocks share Conventional letters throughout deeper profile; exception to general perennial gain.
Numbers
- treatment 15.2 vs. control 13.6 Mg C ha-1 (+11.76 %) · 10–25 cm
- treatment 11.3 vs. control 8.9 Mg C ha-1 (+26.97 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 7.2 vs. control 6.3 Mg C ha-1 (+14.29 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 5
“15.2 | 0.6bc”
Source · p. 5
“13.6 | 0.7ab”
no effect
Conifer vs. Conventionalnot significant · 10–25 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Conifer incremental SOC stock; bcd/ab overlap, unlike the significant surface and 25-50 cm gains.
Numbers
- treatment 15.9 vs. control 13.6 Mg C ha-1 (+16.91 %) · 10–25 cm
Source · p. 5
“15.9 | 1.0bcd”
Source · p. 5
“13.6 | 0.7ab”
no effect
Conifer vs. Conventionalnot significant · 50–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Conifer incremental SOC stock; abc/a overlap, qualifying general perennial gain.
Numbers
- treatment 7.5 vs. control 6.3 Mg C ha-1 (+19.05 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 5
“7.5 | 0.9abc”
Source · p. 5
“6.3 | 0.5a”
no effect
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalnot significant · 50–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Incremental SOC stock; shared ab/a letters qualify late-forest gain above 50 cm.
Numbers
- treatment 7 vs. control 6.3 Mg C ha-1 (+11.11 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 5
“7.0 | 0.8ab”
Source · p. 5
“6.3 | 0.5a”
increase
Conifer vs. Conventionalsignificant · 25–50 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Conifer incremental SOC stock; bcd/a is significant. Separate positive run because 10-25 cm shares letters with Conventional; no uniform deeper perennial benefit.
Numbers
- treatment 10.4 vs. control 8.9 Mg C ha-1 (+16.85 %) · 25–50 cm
Source · p. 6
“Both SOC and SON stocks in each soil interval were statistically different across systems”
Source · p. 5
“10.4 | 1.2bcd”
Source · p. 5
“8.9 | 0.8a”

SOC concentration

↑ 6= 410

increase
No-till vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 10 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+20.48 %)
Source · p. 6
“SOC concentrations were lowest in the Conventional system”
Source · p. 5
“10.0 | 0.4b”
no effect
No-till vs. Conventionalnot significant · 10–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 6 vs. control 5.9 g C kg-1 (+1.695 %) · 10–25 cm
- treatment 2.4 vs. control 2.3 g C kg-1 (+4.348 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 1 vs. control 0.8 g C kg-1 (+25 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 6
“In the 10-25 cm interval differences were not as distinct: the Conventional and No-till systems were similar to one another”
Source · p. 6
“A similar pattern played out in the 25–50 cm interval”
increase
cover cropped systems (Reduced input and Biologically based) vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Both covercroppedvariants pairwisehigher atalllayers,Table2; deepestb/c versusConva despiteprosedifferencesdisappear.
Numbers
- treatment 10.6 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+27.71 %) · 0–10 cm · RI
- treatment 11.2 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+34.94 %) · 0–10 cm · BB
- treatment 7.2 vs. control 5.9 g C kg-1 (+22.03 %) · 10–25 cm · RI
- treatment 7.5 vs. control 5.9 g C kg-1 (+27.12 %) · 10–25 cm · BB
- treatment 3 vs. control 2.3 g C kg-1 (+30.43 %) · 25–50 cm · RI
- treatment 2.8 vs. control 2.3 g C kg-1 (+21.74 %) · 25–50 cm · BB
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 0.8 g C kg-1 (+37.5 %) · 50–100 cm · RI
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 0.8 g C kg-1 (+37.5 %) · 50–100 cm · BB
Source · p. 6
“SOC concentrations were lowest in the Conventional system”
Source · p. 6
“the Conventional and No-till systems were similar to one another and were together lower than others.”
increase
managed perennial crops vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Perennialvariants,Table2surfaceeachhigher; no pooledmean.
Numbers
- treatment 14.1 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+69.88 %) · Poplar
- treatment 13 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+56.63 %) · Alfalfa
- treatment 22.2 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+167.5 %) · Conifer
Source · p. 6
“average SOC concentrations were generally about 34 % lower in the annual row crop surface layers as compared to those in the managed perennial systems”
increase
Early successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 17.7 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+113.3 %)
Source · p. 6
“SOC concentrations were lowest in the Conventional system”
Source · p. 5
“17.7 | 0.5 fg”
increase
Mid-successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 15.5 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+86.75 %)
Source · p. 6
“SOC concentrations were lowest in the Conventional system”
Source · p. 5
“15.5 | 1.0ef”
increase
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 26.3 vs. control 8.3 g C kg-1 (+216.9 %)
Source · p. 6
“SOC concentrations were lowest in the Conventional system and highest in the Late successional system”
no effect
Poplar vs. Conventionalnot significant · 25–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Poplar SOC concentration shared letters at both depths; bounds significant increase through 25 cm. Concentration is distinct from stock.
Numbers
- treatment 3 vs. control 2.3 g C kg-1 (+30.43 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 0.9 vs. control 0.8 g C kg-1 (+12.5 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 5
“3.0 | 0.2abcd”
Source · p. 5
“2.3 | 0.2a”
no effect
Conifer vs. Conventionalnot significant · 50–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Conifer SOC concentration abc/a overlaps; bounds increase through 50 cm.
Numbers
- treatment 1 vs. control 0.8 g C kg-1 (+25 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 6
“differences disappeared below 50 cm”
Source · p. 5
“1.0 | 0.1abc”
Source · p. 5
“0.8 | 0.1a”
no effect
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalnot significant · 50–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Late-forest SOC concentration ab/a overlaps at deepest layer; depth qualification of positive result above 50 cm, not a separate table-cell result.
Numbers
- treatment 1 vs. control 0.8 g C kg-1 (+25 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 6
“differences disappeared below 50 cm”
Source · p. 5
“1.0 | 0.1abc”
Source · p. 5
“0.8 | 0.1a”

SON concentration

↑ 7= 29

increase
No-till vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 1 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+25 %)
Source · p. 6
“SON concentrations also varied among systems and decreased with depth”
Source · p. 5
“1.0 0.0b”
increase
cover cropped systems (Reduced input and Biologically based) vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · RIandBBsurfaceeach1.1gN/kg, printedSE0.0,n6.
Numbers
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+37.5 %) · RI
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+37.5 %) · BB
Source · p. 6
“Here SON concentrations varied 2.1-fold, ranging between 0.8 and 1.9 g N kg soil 1”
Source · p. 5
“1.1 0.0bc”
increase
managed perennial crops vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Allmanagedperennialvariants higher thanConventional.
Numbers
- treatment 1.3 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+62.5 %) · Poplar
- treatment 1.4 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+75 %) · Alfalfa
- treatment 1.5 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+87.5 %) · Conifer
Source · p. 6
“Annual row crops had the lowest SON concentrations as compared to managed perennial and successional systems, but only for the upper interval (0–10 cm)”
increase
Early successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 1.6 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+100 %)
Source · p. 6
“Annual row crops had the lowest SON concentrations as compared to managed perennial and successional systems”
Source · p. 5
“1.6 0.0f”
increase
Mid-successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 1.3 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+62.5 %)
Source · p. 6
“Annual row crops had the lowest SON concentrations as compared to managed perennial and successional systems”
Source · p. 5
“1.3 0.1de”
increase
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment
Numbers
- treatment 1.9 vs. control 0.8 g N kg-1 (+137.5 %)
Source · p. 6
“Annual row crops had the lowest SON concentrations as compared to managed perennial and successional systems”
Source · p. 5
“1.9 0.1 g”
no effect
Biologically based vs. Conventionalnot significant · 25–50 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · BB SON concentration bc/ab overlaps, whereas RI cde/ab differs; depth qualification. Deepest concentration has no pairwise letters and is not assigned a null.
Numbers
- treatment 0.4 vs. control 0.3 g N kg-1 (+33.33 %) · 25–50 cm
Source · p. 5
“0.4 0.0bc”
Source · p. 5
“0.3 0.0ab”
no effect
Poplar and Conifer perennial variants vs. Conventionalnot significant · 10–50 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Poplar and Conifer SON concentrations individually overlap Conventional letters at both depths; unlike Alfalfa. No deepest pair test inferred.
Numbers
- treatment 0.7 vs. control 0.6 g N kg-1 (+16.67 %) · 10–25 cm · Poplar
- treatment 0.4 vs. control 0.3 g N kg-1 (+33.33 %) · 25–50 cm · Poplar
- treatment 0.6 vs. control 0.6 g N kg-1 (0 %) · 10–25 cm · Conifer
- treatment 0.3 vs. control 0.3 g N kg-1 (0 %) · 25–50 cm · Conifer
Source · p. 5
“0.7 0.0bc”
Source · p. 5
“0.6 0.0ab”
increase
Alfalfa vs. Conventionalsignificant · 10–50 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Alfalfa SON concentration remains higher below surface; distinguished from Poplar/Conifer. Coordinator may merge with Alfalfa surface observation of finding-25; no deepest pair test.
Numbers
- treatment 0.8 vs. control 0.6 g N kg-1 (+33.33 %) · 10–25 cm
- treatment 0.4 vs. control 0.3 g N kg-1 (+33.33 %) · 25–50 cm
Source · p. 6
“As SON concentrations declined with depth, trends followed a similar pattern as for SOC.”
Source · p. 5
“0.8 0.0d”
Source · p. 5
“0.6 0.0ab”

bulk density

↓ 5= 27

no effect
No-till vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · No pair differs; actualTable2letters0–10e/e,10–25e/e,25–50cd/d;50–100explicitdiscussionnull notomnibusinferred.
Numbers
- treatment 1.44 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (0 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.57 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (+0.641 %) · 10–25 cm
- treatment 1.57 vs. control 1.6 g cm-3 (-1.875 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 1.55 vs. control 1.58 g cm-3 (-1.899 %) · 50–100 cm · PrintedBDSE3.49NT/0.38CT implausible, leftunencoded.
Source · p. 11
“bulk densities were not different from those in the Conventional system at any depth”
no effect
Reduced input vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–10 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · RIde/Conve: surfaceexplicitannualnull validforthispair; BBexceptionnext.
Numbers
- treatment 1.41 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-2.083 %)
Source · p. 6
“with no significant differences among them.”
Source · p. 5
“1.41 | 0.02de”
decrease
cover cropped systems (Reduced input and Biologically based) vs. Conventionalsignificant · 10–50 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · RI/BBvariantsbothlower; deepestunreportedindividualpairnotextended.
Numbers
- treatment 1.51 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-3.205 %) · 10–25 cm · RI
- treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-3.846 %) · 10–25 cm · BB
- treatment 1.55 vs. control 1.6 g cm-3 (-3.125 %) · 25–50 cm · RI
- treatment 1.54 vs. control 1.6 g cm-3 (-3.75 %) · 25–50 cm · BB
Source · p. 6
“slightly lower bulk densities in the Reduced input and Biologically based systems”
decrease
managed perennial crops vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–25 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Poplar, Alfalfa and Conifer variants; individual pairs lower at both depths. Below 25 cm prose says similar densities; isolated deeper letters are not promoted.
Numbers
- treatment 1.26 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-12.5 %) · 0–10 cm · Poplar
- treatment 1.38 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-4.167 %) · 0–10 cm · Alfalfa
- treatment 1.08 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-25 %) · 0–10 cm · Conifer
- treatment 1.45 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-7.051 %) · 10–25 cm · Poplar
- treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-6.41 %) · 10–25 cm · Alfalfa
- treatment 1.32 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-15.38 %) · 10–25 cm · Conifer
Source · p. 6
“Managed perennial systems had slightly lower bulk densities”
decrease
Early successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–25 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Early successional abandonment plus annual burning; lower density than Conventional. No table-only deeper expansion.
Numbers
- treatment 1.17 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-18.75 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.43 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-8.333 %) · 10–25 cm
Source · p. 6
“successional systems showed the lowest values”
Source · p. 5
“1.17 | 0.02b”
Source · p. 5
“1.44 | 0.03e”
decrease
Mid-successional vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–25 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Historical Mid-successional system; lower density. 25-50 cm cd/d overlaps, so no increase of depth span.
Numbers
- treatment 1.12 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-22.22 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.34 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-14.1 %) · 10–25 cm
Source · p. 6
“successional systems showed the lowest values”
Source · p. 5
“1.12 | 0.03ab”
Source · p. 5
“1.44 | 0.03e”
decrease
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalsignificant · 0–25 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Native late forest, historical land use comparison; no isolated deeper table-letter additions against similar-density prose.
Numbers
- treatment 1.1 vs. control 1.44 g cm-3 (-23.61 %) · 0–10 cm
- treatment 1.27 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-18.59 %) · 10–25 cm
Source · p. 6
“successional systems showed the lowest values”
Source · p. 5
“1.10 | 0.03ab”
Source · p. 5
“1.44 | 0.03e”

PyC concentration as percentage of SOC

= 33

no effect
Early successional vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · PyC/SOCfraction, notg/kgsoil; Earlyannualburningversusannualcropland; Table7letterscomparedepthswithinsystem, intersystemnullfromprose.
Numbers
- treatment 9.5 vs. control 12.7 % of SOC (-25.2 %) · 0–25 cm
- treatment 18.1 vs. control 26.9 % of SOC (-32.71 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 39.9 vs. control 52.2 % of SOC (-23.56 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 11
“Neither whole-profile PyC concentrations nor total amounts of PyC differed between the Early successional system and the Conventional annual row crop system”
Source · p. 8
“PyC concentrations across systems did not significantly differ within any depth layer.”
no effect
Late successional forest vs. Conventionalnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · Lateforestversuscropland; fractionofSOC; intersystemnullprose, notwithin-systemdepthletters.
Numbers
- treatment 8.1 vs. control 12.7 % of SOC (-36.22 %) · 0–25 cm
- treatment 12.4 vs. control 26.9 % of SOC (-53.9 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 31.5 vs. control 52.2 % of SOC (-39.66 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 8
“PyC concentrations across systems did not significantly differ within any depth layer.”
Source · p. 12
“PyC concentrations were similar among the Early successional, Conventional, and Late successional systems”
no effect
Early successional vs. Late successional forestnot significant · 0–100 cm · 2013 · KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment · PyC fraction of SOC, annually burned Early versus native Late forest. Explicit intersystem absence, not inferred from Table 7 depth letters.
Numbers
- treatment 9.5 vs. control 8.1 % of SOC (+17.28 %) · 0–25 cm
- treatment 18.1 vs. control 12.4 % of SOC (+45.97 %) · 25–50 cm
- treatment 39.9 vs. control 31.5 % of SOC (+26.67 %) · 50–100 cm
Source · p. 12
“PyC concentrations were similar among the Early successional, Conventional, and Late successional systems despite annual burning in the Early successional system.”

Sites

KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment

Location: W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, southwest Michigan, USA42.40° N, 85.40° W
Climate: 10.1 °C mean annual temperature1,005 mm annual precipitation
Soil: Hapludalfs (Typic, mixed, active, mesic) · USDA; Luvisols (Haplic) · WRB
Land use: annual row crop systemsArable land, Late successional eastern deciduous forestBroad-leaved forest, conifer plantingConiferous forest, herbaceous perennial vegetationPerennial vegetation

Soil layers
Depth	Texture	Clay	pH	Organic C	Bulk density
0–30 cm	fine loamy	19 %	–	–	–
0–30 cm	coarse loamy	14 %	–	–	–

Soil carbon change in intensive agriculture after 25 years of conservation management

Findings

SON stocks

Similar papers

Assessing nematode communities in agroecosystems of varying human intervention

Soil carbon and nitrogen fractions after 19 years of farming systems research in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina

Agricultural Management and Soil Carbon Storage in Surface vs. Deep Layers

Soil carbon change in intensive agriculture after 25 years of conservation management

Findings

SON stocks

Similar papers

Assessing nematode communities in agroecosystems of varying human intervention

Soil carbon and nitrogen fractions after 19 years of farming systems research in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina

Agricultural Management and Soil Carbon Storage in Surface vs. Deep Layers

SOC stocks

SOC concentration

SON concentration

bulk density

PyC concentration as percentage of SOC

PyC stocks

Set-up

Treatments

Measured

Sites

KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment

Land-Use Intensity Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation Rates and Mechanisms

Soil organic carbon fractions influenced by organic input diversity and tillage frequency after 25 years in Mid-Atlantic US grain cropping systems

Abstract

Findings

SON stocks

Similar papers

Assessing nematode communities in agroecosystems of varying human intervention

Soil carbon and nitrogen fractions after 19 years of farming systems research in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina

Agricultural Management and Soil Carbon Storage in Surface vs. Deep Layers

Abstract

Findings

SON stocks

Similar papers

Assessing nematode communities in agroecosystems of varying human intervention

Soil carbon and nitrogen fractions after 19 years of farming systems research in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina

Agricultural Management and Soil Carbon Storage in Surface vs. Deep Layers

SOC stocks

SOC concentration

SON concentration

bulk density

PyC concentration as percentage of SOC

PyC stocks

Set-up

Treatments

Measured

Sites

KBS LTER Main Cropping System Experiment

Land-Use Intensity Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation Rates and Mechanisms

Soil organic carbon fractions influenced by organic input diversity and tillage frequency after 25 years in Mid-Atlantic US grain cropping systems