Abstract
This study examined the economic potential of no-tillage versus conventional tillage to sequester soil carbon by using two rates of commercial N fertilizer or beef cattle manure for continuous corn (Zea mays L.) production. Yields, input rates, field operations, and prices from an experiment were used to simulate a distribution of net returns for eight production systems. Carbon release values from direct, embodied, and feedstock energies were estimated for each system, and were used with soil carbon sequestration rates from soil tests to determine the amount of net carbon sequestered by each system. The values of carbon credits that provide an incentive for managers to adopt production systems that sequester carbon at greater rates were derived. No-till systems had greater annual soil carbon gains, net carbon gains, and net returns than conventional tillage systems. Systems that used beef cattle manure had greater soil carbon gains and net carbon gains, but lower net returns, than systems that used commercial N fertilizer. Carbon credits would be needed to encourage the use of manure-fertilized cropping systems.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
No-till systems had greater annual soil carbon gains than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- No-till systemse0
- Outcome
- annual soil carbon gainse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage systemse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-till systems had greater annual soil carbon gains, net carbon gains, and net returns than conventional tillage systems”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till systems had greater net carbon gains than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- No-till systemse0
- Outcome
- net carbon gainse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-till systems had greater annual soil carbon gains, net carbon gains, and net returns than conventional tillage systems”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till systems had greater net returns than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- No-till systemse0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-till systems had greater annual soil carbon gains, net carbon gains, and net returns than conventional tillage systems”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure systems had greater soil carbon gains than commercial N systems.
- Treatment
- beef cattle manuree0
- Outcome
- soil carbon gainse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- commercial N fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Systems that used beef cattle manure had greater soil carbon gains and net carbon gains, but lower net returns, than systems that used commercial N fertilizer”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure systems had greater net carbon gains than commercial N systems.
- Treatment
- beef cattle manuree0
- Outcome
- net carbon gainse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- commercial N fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Systems that used beef cattle manure had greater soil carbon gains and net carbon gains, but lower net returns, than systems that used commercial N fertilizer”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure systems had lower net returns than commercial N systems.
- Treatment
- beef cattle manuree0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- commercial N fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Systems that used beef cattle manure had greater soil carbon gains and net carbon gains, but lower net returns, than systems that used commercial N fertilizer”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon credits would be needed to encourage manure-fertilized systems.
- Outcome
- Carbon credits would be needed to encourage the use of manure-fertilized cropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon credits would be needed to encourage the use of manure-fertilized cropping systems”
e1“corn (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
196 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
242 papers more in this group
See all 246 papers →fertilization · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
302 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
335 papers more in this group
See all 339 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.