Early adoption of no-till mitigates soil organic carbon and nitrogen losses due to land use change · Knowledge Library

BonaResKnowledge Library

Early adoption of no-till mitigates soil organic carbon and nitrogen losses due to land use change · Knowledge Library

TOC Stratification Ratio (TOCSR)

↑ 5↓ 16

increase
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged N sources; Table3 A/B .05.
Numbers
- treatment 1.95 vs. control 1.36 dimensionless (+43.38 %)
Source · p. 5
“NT consistently showed better soil C and N quality indices than soils under CT”
Source · p. 7
“1.36B 1,† | 1.95A †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. urea (UR)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged tillage; Table3 a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 1.91 vs. control 1.56 dimensionless (+22.44 %)
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“1.56b | 1.58b | 1.61ab | 1.91a †”
increase
no-till (NT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · TOC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus same-site preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.95 vs. control 1.62 dimensionless (+20.37 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“No-till soils also presented higher CandN quality indices than the grassland soil with the exception of the CPI (1.03)and theNPI (0.91) indices”
Source · p. 7
“TOC Stratification Ratio (TOCSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.62 | 1.36B 1,† | 1.95A †”
decrease
conventional tillage (CT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · TOC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus same-site preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.36 vs. control 1.62 dimensionless (-16.05 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“CT soils had lower CandN quality indices than observed for the grassland”
Source · p. 7
“TOC Stratification Ratio (TOCSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.62 | 1.36B 1,†”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. control without fertilization (CTR)significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 · Concordia-SC · TOC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; N-source marginal means across CT and NT. CS versus CTR, Tukey-Kramer a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 1.91 vs. control 1.59 dimensionless (+20.13 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“TOC Stratification Ratio (TOCSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.62 | 1.36B 1,† | 1.95A † | 1.59b | 1.56b | 1.58b | 1.61ab | 1.91a †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · TOC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm. CS marginal mean across tillage versus same-site preconversion grassland baseline; Table 3 dagger t-test, not a randomized fertilizer contrast.
Numbers
- treatment 1.91 vs. control 1.62 dimensionless (+17.9 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 6
“Indices of CSRand POCSRalso differed between soils amended with CSand soil under grassland.”
Source · p. 7
“TOC Stratification Ratio (TOCSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.62 | 1.36B 1,† | 1.95A † | 1.59b | 1.56b | 1.58b | 1.61ab | 1.91a †”

POC Stratification Ratio (POCSR)

↑ 5↓ 16

increase
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged N sources.
Numbers
- treatment 1.82 vs. control 1.27 dimensionless (+43.31 %)
Source · p. 5
“NT consistently showed better soil C and N quality indices than soils under CT”
Source · p. 7
“1.27B † | 1.82A †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. urea (UR)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged tillage; Table3 a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 1.98 vs. control 1.42 dimensionless (+39.44 %)
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“1.42b | 1.40b | 1.45b | 1.98a †”
increase
no-till (NT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · POC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.82 vs. control 1.59 dimensionless (+14.47 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“No-till soils also presented higher CandN quality indices than the grassland soil with the exception of the CPI (1.03)and theNPI (0.91) indices”
Source · p. 7
“POC Stratification Ratio | | (POCSR) | 0−5/5−30 | 1.59 | 1.27B † | 1.82A †”
decrease
conventional tillage (CT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · POC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.27 vs. control 1.59 dimensionless (-20.13 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“CT soils had lower CandN quality indices than observed for the grassland”
Source · p. 7
“POC Stratification Ratio | | (POCSR) | 0−5/5−30 | 1.59 | 1.27B †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. control without fertilization (CTR)significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 · Concordia-SC · POC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; N-source marginal means across CT and NT. CS versus CTR, Tukey-Kramer a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 1.98 vs. control 1.48 dimensionless (+33.78 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“POC Stratification Ratio | | (POCSR) | 0−5/5−30 | 1.59 | 1.27B † | 1.82A † | 1.48b | 1.42b | 1.40b | 1.45b | 1.98a †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · POC concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm. CS marginal mean across tillage versus same-site preconversion grassland baseline; Table 3 dagger t-test, not a randomized fertilizer contrast.
Numbers
- treatment 1.98 vs. control 1.59 dimensionless (+24.53 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 6
“Indices of CSRand POCSRalso differed between soils amended with CSand soil under grassland.”
Source · p. 7
“POC Stratification Ratio | | (POCSR) | 0−5/5−30 | 1.59 | 1.27B † | 1.82A † | 1.48b | 1.42b | 1.40b | 1.45b | 1.98a †”

TN stocks

↑ 2↓ 2= 15

increase
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–10 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC
Source · p. 5
“NT had higher TOCand TN stocks in the 0−5, 5−10,and the cumulative 0−30and 0−60cm soil layers as compared with the CT soils”
no effect
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · 10–60 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · Individual layers, not cumulative profile.
Source · p. 5
“No differences on TOCand TN stocks were noticed between tillage systems for other soil layers.”
increase
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–60 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · Cumulative0–30 and0–60 ESM profiles. Reported34% mitigation concerns losses, not stock percent gain.
Source · p. 5
“NT had higher TOCand TN stocks in the 0−5, 5−10,and the cumulative 0−30and 0−60cm soil layers as compared with the CT soils”
decrease
conventional tillage (CT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–60 cm · March2017 versus March2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · Cumulative loss2.6Mg/ha(21%);0–30 loss1.3Mg/ha. All individual layers lost TN, Fig1.
Source · p. 9
“significant losses of TN (21 % or original stocks or 2.6 Mg TN ha−1) were observed throughout the soil profile under CT”
Source · p. 11
“The conversion of a Nitisol from Southern Brazil under natural grassland to agriculture with CT decreased TOCand TN by respective 9 and 21 % (0−60 cm)”
decrease
no-till (NT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–60 cm · March2017 versus March2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · Cumulative0–30 loss0.6 and0–60 loss1.7 Mg/ha. Individual0–5 and10–20cm exceptions; conclusion prevented-loss wording not used to claim cumulative null.
Source · p. 5
“Both CTand NT soils had significant losses of TN in comparison with the original stocks under grassland throughout the soil profile, with the exception of the 0−5and 10−20cm soil layers ofNT soils.”
Source · p. 5
“have lost 0.6and 1.7 Mg TN ha−1 in the respectively 0−30and 0−60 cm soil layers.”

TN Stratification Ratio (TNSR)

↑ 4↓ 15

increase
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged N sources.
Numbers
- treatment 1.82 vs. control 1.32 dimensionless (+37.88 %)
Source · p. 5
“NT consistently showed better soil C and N quality indices than soils under CT”
Source · p. 7
“1.32B † | 1.82A †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. urea (UR)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged tillage; Table3 a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 1.81 vs. control 1.49 dimensionless (+21.48 %)
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“1.49b | 1.52b | 1.54ab | 1.81a”
increase
no-till (NT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · TN concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.82 vs. control 1.56 dimensionless (+16.67 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“No-till soils also presented higher CandN quality indices than the grassland soil with the exception of the CPI (1.03)and theNPI (0.91) indices”
Source · p. 7
“TN Stratification Ratio (TNSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.56 | 1.32B † | 1.82A †”
decrease
conventional tillage (CT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · TN concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.32 vs. control 1.56 dimensionless (-15.38 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“CT soils had lower CandN quality indices than observed for the grassland”
Source · p. 7
“TN Stratification Ratio (TNSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.56 | 1.32B †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. control without fertilization (CTR)significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 · Concordia-SC · TN concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; N-source marginal means across CT and NT. CS versus CTR, Tukey-Kramer a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 1.81 vs. control 1.49 dimensionless (+21.48 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“TN Stratification Ratio (TNSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.56 | 1.32B † | 1.82A † | 1.49b | 1.49b | 1.52b | 1.54ab | 1.81a”

PN Stratification Ratio (PNSR)

↑ 4↓ 15

increase
no-till (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged N sources.
Numbers
- treatment 1.99 vs. control 1.27 dimensionless (+56.69 %)
Source · p. 5
“NT consistently showed better soil C and N quality indices than soils under CT”
Source · p. 7
“1.27B † | 1.99A †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. urea (UR)significant · 0–30 cm · March2017 · Concordia-SC · 0–5/5–30 concentration ratio, averaged tillage; Table3 a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 2.19 vs. control 1.41 dimensionless (+55.32 %)
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“1.41b | 1.48b | 1.50b | 2.19a”
increase
no-till (NT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · PN concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.99 vs. control 1.7 dimensionless (+17.06 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“No-till soils also presented higher CandN quality indices than the grassland soil with the exception of the CPI (1.03)and theNPI (0.91) indices”
Source · p. 7
“PN Stratification Ratio (PNSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.70 | 1.27B † | 1.99A †”
decrease
conventional tillage (CT) vs. grassland in 2012significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 versus March 2012 grassland · Concordia-SC · PN concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; tillage marginal mean versus preconversion baseline. Table 3 dagger t-test.
Numbers
- treatment 1.27 vs. control 1.7 dimensionless (-25.29 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 5
“CT soils had lower CandN quality indices than observed for the grassland”
Source · p. 7
“PN Stratification Ratio (PNSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.70 | 1.27B †”
increase
composted pig slurry (CS) vs. control without fertilization (CTR)significant · 0–30 cm · March 2017 · Concordia-SC · PN concentration stratification 0-5/5-30 cm; N-source marginal means across CT and NT. CS versus CTR, Tukey-Kramer a/b.
Numbers
- treatment 2.19 vs. control 1.57 dimensionless (+39.49 %) · 0–30 cm
Source · p. 6
“Soils amended with CS had the higher CSR, POCSR,NSRand PNSR (1.91, 1.98, 1.81and 2.19, respectively) than other treatments”
Source · p. 7
“PN Stratification Ratio (PNSR) | | | 0−5/5−30 | 1.70 | 1.27B † | 1.99A † | 1.57b | 1.41b | 1.48b | 1.50b | 2.19a”

Sites

Concordia-SC

Location: Concordia-SC, Brazil27.31° S, 51.99° W
Climate: Cfa18 °C mean annual temperature1,800 mm annual precipitation
Soil: Nitisol (Rhodic) · WRB
Land use: natural grasslandPastures and managed grassland, double-cropping system with maizeArable land
Management on the whole site: double-cropping systemCrop rotation

Soil layers
Depth	Texture	Clay	pH	Organic C	Bulk density
0–10 cm	loamy	25 % (from g/kg)	5.3	–	–