Haddaway Et Al. 2016
Haddaway Et Al. 2016
Haddaway Et Al. 2016
Abstract
Background: Soils contain the greatest terrestrial carbon (C) pool on the planet. Since approximately 12 % of soil C
is held in cultivated soils, management of these agricultural areas has a huge potential to affect global carbon cycling;
acting sometimes as a sink but also as a source. Tillage is one of the most important agricultural practices for soil
management and has been traditionally undertaken to mechanically prepare soils for seeding and minimize effects
of weeds. It has been associated with many negative impacts on soil quality, most notably a reduction in soil organic
carbon (SOC), although still a matter of considerable debate, depending on factors such as depth of measurement,
soil type, and tillage method. No tillage or reduced intensity tillage are frequently proposed mitigation measures for
preservation of SOC and improvement of soil quality, for example for reducing erosion. Whilst several reviews have
demonstrated benefits to C conservation of no till agriculture over intensive tillage, the general picture for reduced
tillage intensity is unclear. This systematic review proposes to synthesise an extensive body of evidence, previously
identified through a systematic map.
Methods: This systematic review is based on studies concerning tillage collated in a recently completed systematic
map on the impact of agricultural management on SOC restricted to the warm temperate climate zone (i.e. boreo-
temperate). These 311 studies were identified and selected systematically according to CEE guidelines. An update of
the original search will be undertaken to identify newly published academic and grey literature in the time since the
original search was performed in September 2013. Studies will be critically appraised for their internal and external
validity, followed by full data extraction (meta-data describing study settings and quantitative study results). Where
possible, studies will be included in meta-analyses examining the effect of tillage reduction (‘moderate’ (i.e. shallow)
and no tillage relative to ‘intensive’ tillage methods such as mouldboard ploughing, where soil is turned over through‑
out the soil profile). The implications of the findings will be discussed in terms of policy, practice and research along
with a discussion of the nature of the evidence base.
Keywords: Agriculture, Conservation, Till, Plough, Farming, Land management, Climate change, Land use change,
Carbon sequestration
© 2016 Haddaway et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/
publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 2 of 8
advent of the plough (e.g. [9]) indicating that agricultural total SOC stocks are measured or only presented as the
soils may have a potential to mitigate climate change SOC concentration without accounting for equal soil
through C sequestration [10, 11]. Besides climate change, masses. Whilst some advantages of conservation tillage
SOC has a number of potential associated benefits, are clear (e.g. reduced erosion and reduced fuel consump-
including: increased soil fertility [12, 13]; improved bio- tion), other impacts (e.g. N2O emission, crop yield, SOC
logical and physical soil characteristics [14] via a reduc- sequestration) can be variable [31]. What seems to be
tion in bulk density, improved water-holding capacity and decisive for the direction of SOC changes is the effect of
enhanced activity of soil microbes [15] (although this may tillage on net primary production (NPP). If NPP increases
increase CO2 emission); and increased soil biodiversity due to certain tillage practices, SOC stocks are more likely
[16]. Promoting SOC also often increases soil biodiversity to increase and vice versa [32]. The purpose of this sys-
and ecosystem functions that can enhance agricultural tematic review is to identify the state-of-the-art results
productivity by mediating nutrient cycling, soil structure regarding the so far inconclusive effects of tillage on SOC
formation, and crop resistance to pests and diseases [17]. in a comprehensive, transparent and objective manner.
Historically tillage has been performed because of a
number of benefits associated with the practice. These Review questions
benefits include: loosening and aeration of topsoil, facili- We hypothesise that reduced or no tillage will mitigate
tating planting; mixing of crop residues into the soil; losses of soil carbon as compared to more intensive
mechanical destruction of weeds; drying wetter soils ploughing [18, 19]. However, reduced tillage is assumed
prior to seeding; allowing frost-induced disturbance to have effects on SOC in the surface of the soil but not
of the soil when undertaken prior to winter, facilitating always through deeper soil layers [31]. Hence, we also
seedbed preparation in the spring. test effects of reduced tillage from experiments with
However, conventional tillage may increase compaction measurements in the supper 15 cm and deeper in the soil
of soil below the depth of tillage (i.e. formation of a till- profile.
age pan), the susceptibility to water and wind erosion and
the energy costs for the mechanical operations. In recent Identification of the topic
years, the promotion of less intensive tillage practices The subject of tillage was originally identified and
(also referred to as conservation tillage or reduced till- included in the previously published systematic map [33]
age) and no tillage agricultural management has sought following in depth discussion with Swedish stakeholders,
to mitigate some of these negative impacts on soil quality including the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Following
and to preserve SOC. These practices aim at maintaining completion of the systematic map, tillage was identified
organic matter on the surface or in the upper soil layer as a candidate topic for full systematic review based on a
thereby increasing SOC concentration especially in the number of key criteria: the presence of sufficient reliable
topsoil [18, 19]. A reduction in the need for mechani- evidence, the relevance of the topic for stakeholders, the
cal tillage practices reduces energy consumption and applicability of the topic for the Swedish environment,
C emissions through the use of fossil fuels [16], whilst the benefit of a systematic approach to a topic that has
also reducing labour requirements [20], but this benefit received some attention via traditional reviews, and the
may be outweighed to a certain extent by the increased added value of investigating effect modifiers and sources
requirements for pesticides. Furthermore, reduction of of heterogeneity across studies via a large meta-analysis.
tillage activities has been associated with a loss of yield The topic was proposed and accepted during a meeting
(8.5 % lower yield for no tillage relative to conventional of the authors in May 2015.
tillage [21]). Higher N2O emissions can occur with
reduced or no tillage, due to moister and denser soil con- Objective of the review
ditions, which may eventually offset positive effects on The effects of tillage on SOC have previously been
SOC balances [22, 23]. reviewed (e.g. [10, 19, 24–28]) but as yet none of these
Alvarez [24] recognized the need for a broad synthetic reviews has been systematic in nature. The objective of
approach to assess the impact of agricultural manage- this review is to systematically review and synthesise
ment. As such, a number of authors have reviewed the existing research pertinent to tillage practices in warm
impact of tillage on soil C (e.g. [10, 19, 24–28]). These temperate and snow climate zones (see Population below
reviews and meta-analyses have shown both beneficial for details) using, as a basis, the evidence identified
[10, 19] and null [29, 30] effects on SOC due to no till- within a recently completed systematic map [33]. This
age relative to conventional tillage. Furthermore, the systematic map aimed to collate evidence relating to the
efficacy of reduced tillage relative to no tillage is also impacts of all agricultural management on soil organic
unclear [24, 26]. Discrepancies may depend on whether carbon in boreo-temperate regions.
Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 3 of 8
Primary question What is the effect of tillage intensity effective at identifying both academic and grey literature
on soil organic carbon (SOC)? [34]. The choice to reduce the number of citation data-
bases was driven by observations made during the under-
Secondary question How do other agricultural manage- taking of the systematic map, where a large number of
ment interventions interact with tillage to affect SOC? duplicates was identified in many of the databases used.
Only English language search terms will be used but all
articles identified in Danish, English, French, German,
Population Arable soils in agricultural regions Italian, and Swedish will be included.
from the warm temperate climate zone In the academic databases the following search string
(fully humid and summer dry, i.e., will be used to search on ‘topic words’. This search string
Köppen–Geiger climate classification; has been adapted from the original string used in the
Cfa, Cfb, Cfc, Csa, Csb, Csc) and the published systematic map [35] to identify specifically till-
snow climate zone (fully humid, i.e., age research and restricted to the period since the origi-
nal search was undertaken (September 2013):
Köppen–Geiger climate classification;
Dfa, Dfb, Dfc). soil* AND (arable OR agricult* OR farm* OR crop*
Intervention Any described tillage practice (includ- OR cultivat*) AND (till* OR “no till*” OR “reduced
ing no tillage, reduced tillage, rota- till*” OR “direct drill*” OR “conservation till*” OR
tional tillage, conventional tillage and “minimum till*”) AND (“soil organic carbon” OR
subsoiling). “soil carbon” OR “soil C” OR “soil organic C” OR
Comparator More intensive tillage practice. Also SOC OR “carbon pool” OR “carbon stock” OR “car-
before/after comparisons for single bon storage” OR “soil organic matter” OR SOM OR
tillage treatments. “carbon sequestrat*” OR “C sequestrat*”)
Outcome SOC (measured as either concentra- [the underlined text indicates modifications to the
tion or stock). original systematic map search string]
In Google Scholar the following search string will be
used and the first (up to) 1000 records downloaded for
Methods both title and full text searches:
Searches
Original systematic map search soil AND carbon AND (till OR tillage OR “reduced
Searches of 17 academic databases were undertaken as tillage” OR “conservation tillage” OR “no tillage” OR
part of the published systematic map between the 16th “direct drill” OR “minimum till*”)
and 19th September 2013. This search was broader Up to 1000 search results (ordered by an undisclosed
than just tillage, including also interventions relating algorithm) for full text searches and title searches
to amendments, fertilisers and crop rotations (some restricted to 2013–2015 will be downloaded using web-
750 studies in total). These academic database searches crawling software [34, 36].
were supplemented by searches for grey literature via
web search engines and organisational websites, and by Screening
searches of the bibliographies of 127 relevant reviews and A total of 311 studies have already been identified as part
meta-analyses identified during the course of the system- of the recent systematic map [33]. These studies were
atic map. Full details for all searches can be found in sup- originally assessed according to predefined inclusion cri-
plementary information accompanying the systematic teria (see [35]) as part of the systematic map. These origi-
map described in Haddaway et al. [33]. nal inclusion criteria were modified for the purposes of
this systematic review by the inclusion of a requirement
Search update for studies to have investigated tillage interventions. The
A search update will be undertaken to capture research inclusion criteria used to screen all studies (including the
published since the original search in September 2013. original 311 studies and the updated search results) are
The update will be restricted to four academic databases, as follows:
Academic Search Premier, Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Sci-
ence (Web of Science Core Collection, BIOSIS Citation Relevant
Index, Chinese Science Citation Database, Data Citation populations Arable soils in agricultural regions
Index, SciELO Citation Index), and one academic search from the warm temperate climate zone
engine, Google Scholar, which has been shown to be
(fully humid and summer dry, i.e.,
Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 4 of 8
Every study identified via the update will be screened excluding unreliable studies that were highly susceptible
through three stages: title, abstract and full text. At each to bias (such as those lacking details on methods, or those
level, records containing or likely to contain relevant infor- with no replication) or non-generalisable and to assess
mation will be retained and taken to the next stage. Where the reliability of the evidence base. Reasons for exclu-
information is lacking (for example where abstracts are miss- sion were transparently recorded for all studies (see sup-
ing), the record will be retained in order to be conservative. plementary information in [33]). In addition to excluding
Following abstract screening full texts will be sought and studies that were highly susceptible to bias, five domains
those that cannot be obtained will be documented as such were assessed for study reliability for those studies pass-
in the full systematic review. Screening will be performed ing the initial assessment: spatial replication (number of
by one reviewer, with a subset of 10 % of records at abstract spatial replicates); temporal replication (number of time
level being screened by a second reviewer. A Kappa test [38] samples); treatment allocation (e.g. randomized, blocked,
will be performed on the dual screening to assess the level purposeful); study duration (length of the experimen-
of agreement. Where agreement is lower than moderate tal period); soil sampling depth (the number and extent
(kappa = 0.6) discrepancies will be discussed in detail and a of soil depth samples taken). For each of these domains,
further subset screened and tested to ensure improvement in studies were awarded a 0, 1, or 2 for the degree of reliabil-
consistency before continuing with screening. ity as described in Table 1. Where insufficient information
was reported a ‘?’ was awarded. See Haddaway et al. [33]
Additional bibliographic checking for full details of the methods used and results from the
Reviews and meta-analyses identified through screen- systematic map.
ing of search results from the search update described
above will be assessed separately, examining the bibliog- On‑going critical appraisal for this systematic review
raphies of each article for potentially relevant articles. As The initial critical appraisal schema described above will
with the screening described above, bibliographic check- be used to assess studies identified through the search
ing will be performed by one reviewer with a subset of update. Next, every study that has passed this first stage
10 % of review bibliographies being checked by a second of critical appraisal will then be given a ‘low’ or ‘high’
reviewer to ensure consistency. reliability rating based on an individual assessment of
reliability for each study (using the coding described in
Critical appraisal of study validity Table 1), and a short justification will be given for each
Critical appraisal undertaken in the completed systematic study in text form. This rating activities will be per-
map formed by two reviewers. Rating will be used as a basis
The completed systematic map undertook critical for sensitivity analysis in the meta-analyses described
appraisal of the included studies for the purposes of below.
22. Basche AD, Miguez FE, Kaspar T, Castellano M. Do cover crops increase or 31. Baker JM, Ochsner TE, Venterea RT, Griffis TJ. Tillage and soil carbon
decrease nitrous oxide emissions? A meta-analysis. J Soil Water Conserv. sequestration—what do we really know? Agric Ecosyst Environ.
2014;69(6):471–82. 2007;118(1):1–5.
23. Rochette P, Worth DE, Lemke RL, McConkey BG, Pennock DJ, Wagner- 32. Virto I, Barré P, Burlot A, Chenu C. Carbon input differences as the
Riddle C, et al. Estimation of N2O emissions from agricultural soils in main factor explaining the variability in soil organic C storage in
Canada. I. Development of a country-specific methodology. Can J Soil Sci. no-tilled compared to inversion tilled agrosystems. Biogeochemistry.
2008;88(5):641–54. 2012;108(1–3):17–26.
24. Alvarez R. A review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects 33. Haddaway NR, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, Jørgensen HB, Kätterer T, Lugato
on soil organic carbon storage. Soil Use Manag. 2005;21(1):38–52. E, et al. What are the effects of agricultural management on soil organic
25. Amini S, Asoodar MA. The effect of conservation tillage on crop yield carbon (SOC) stocks? A systematic map. Environ Evid. 2015;4(1):1.
production. N Y Sci J. 2015; 8(3):25–9. 34. Haddaway NR, Collins A, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google Scholar in
26. Angers D, Eriksen-Hamel N. Full-inversion tillage and organic car‑ evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS
bon distribution in soil profiles: a meta-analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J. One. 2015;10(9):e0138237.
2008;72(5):1370–4. 35. Söderström B, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, Kätterer T, Lugato E, Thomsen IK,
27. Govaerts B, Verhulst N, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Sayre K, Dixon J, et al. What are the effects of agricultural management on soil organic
Dendooven L. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: carbon (SOC) stocks? Environ Evid. 2014;3(2).doi:10.1186/2047-2382-3-2.
between myth and farmer reality. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2009;28(3):97–122. 36. Haddaway NR. The use of web-scraping software in searching for grey
28. Six J, Feller C, Denef K, Ogle S, Sa JCDM, Albrecht A. Soil organic matter, literature. Grey J. 2015;11(3):186–90.
biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils—effects of no- 37. Smith P. How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be
tillage. Agronomie. 2002;22(7–8):755–75. detected? Glob Change Biol. 2004;10(11):1878–83.
29. Dimassi B, Mary B, Wylleman R, Labreuche J, Couture D, Piraux F, et al. 38. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled
Long-term effect of contrasted tillage and crop management on soil car‑ disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213.
bon dynamics during 41 years. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2014;188:134–46. 39. Haddaway NR. A call for better reporting of conservation research data
30. Powlson DS, Stirling CM, Jat M, Gerard BG, Palm CA, Sanchez PA, et al. for use in meta‐analyses. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(4):1242–5.
Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat 40. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World map of the Köppen–
Clim Change. 2014;4(8):678–83. Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Z. 2006;15(3):259–63.