Haddaway Et Al. 2016

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

Haddaway et al.

Environ Evid (2016) 5:1


DOI 10.1186/s13750-016-0052-0
Environmental Evidence

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL Open Access

How does tillage intensity affect soil


organic carbon? A systematic review protocol
Neal Robert Haddaway1*, Katarina Hedlund2, Louise E. Jackson3, Thomas Kätterer4, Emanuele Lugato5,
Ingrid K. Thomsen6, Helene B. Jørgensen2 and Per‑Erik Isberg7

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

Background acting as a C sink, potentially mitigating climate change


Soils contain the largest terrestrial carbon (C) pool glob- [4–6]. Consequently, changes in soil C could affect
ally—some 2500 Pg of C to a depth of 2  m—represent- atmospheric CO2) concentration. Approximately 12 % of
ing approximately twice the atmospheric C stock [1–3]. soil C is held in cultivated soils [3], which cover around
Indeed, soils could provide a vital ecosystem service by 35 % of the terrestrial land area of the planet [7].
Arable soils are under considerable threat due to unsus-
*Correspondence: neal.haddaway@eviem.se;
tainable cultivation practices. It has been estimated
neal_haddaway@hotmail.com that US soils may have lost between 30 and 50  % of the
1
Mistra Council for Evidence‑Based Environmental Management (EviEM), soil organic carbon (SOC) that they contained prior to
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 50005, 104 05 Stockholm,
Sweden
the establishment of agriculture there [8]. This has been
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article attributed to loss of C from agricultural soils due to the

© 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

Köppen–Geiger climate classification; will be assessed on an individual basis


Cfa, Cfb, Cfc, Csa, Csb, Csc) and the before classifying them broadly as no
snow climate zone (fully humid, i.e., tillage, moderate intensity tillage, and
Köppen–Geiger climate classification; high intensity tillage.
Dfa, Dfb, Dfc). Figure  1 displays the Relevant
geographical regions covered by these comparators 
Any comparison between different
zones. These zones were selected due intensities of tillage from no tillage to
to their relative homogeneity and rel- intensive tillage. Additionally, stud-
evance to the Swedish environment. ies will be included that make com-
Relevant parisons of single interventions from
interventions 
All tillage practices identified itera- before relative to after the intervention.
tively within the evidence base. Such Relevant
practices include: no tillage (also outcomes  Soil C measures, including: soil organic
described as direct drill); reduced, carbon (SOC), total organic carbon
minimum or conservation tillage (i.e. (TOC), total carbon (TC), and soil
chisel plough, disc plough, harrow, organic matter (SOM). This may be
mulch plough, ridge till); rotational expressed either as a concentration (e.g.
tillage (i.e. non-annual, regular tillage); g/kg or %) or as a stock (e.g. Mg/ha).
conventional tillage (i.e. mouldboard Relevant
plough); subsoiling. We recognise study types 
Field studies examining interven-
that some tillage practices classified tions that have lasted at least 10 years
above as reduced tillage may be inten- to ensure that changes in soil C are
sive, and all described tillage practices detectable [37].

Fig. 1  World map of Köppen–Geiger climate classification. From [40]


Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 5 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.

Table 1  Critical appraisal criteria


Variable Value Score

Spatial (true) replication 2 replicates 0


3–4 replicates 1
>4 replicates 2
Temporal replication ≤3 replicates 0
4–6 replicates 1
>6 replicates 2
Treatment allocation (as described for the full experimental design) Purposive (selective) 0
Split-/strip-plot/latin square/blocked/randomised/exhaustive 2
Duration of experiment 10–19 years 0
20–29 years 1
≥30 years 2
Soil sampling depth Shallow (maximum depth ≤15 cm) single or multiple sampling 0
Plough layer (maximum depth 15–25 cm) single or multiple sampling, or 1
deep (maximum depth >25 cm) single sampling
Multiple deep sampling (maximum depth >25 cm) 2
Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 6 of 8

Effect modifiers/sources of heterogeneity moderator to investigate the influence of study duration.


All studies included in this review after critical appraisal Data from studies quoting stocks rather than concentra-
will be subject to extraction of meta-data (see Data tion will be converted to concentration to enable equiva-
Extraction, below), which will include the extraction lent effect sizes to be incorporated in one meta-analysis.
of data regarding key sources of heterogeneity. These Studies that do not provide bulk density along with stocks
include: climate zone, latitude, longitude, and soil type will be analysed separately as stocks (where universal soil
(classification or texture). These potential modifiers will depth limits can be ascertained across the evidence base).
be used in meta-analyses to account for significant differ-
ences between studies, as described below in Synthesis. Synthesis
All studies used in this review will be long-term agricul- A narrative synthesis of the evidence base will be under-
tural sites, and so the impacts of interventions will all be taken using tables and figures that both describe the evi-
investigated in relation to implementation of alternative dence base itself and the findings of individual studies. In
agricultural practices on similar land-use types. Where addition, meta-analysis will be performed where possible,
possible, baseline data will be used to account for vari- as described below.
ability within studies.
Key comparisons for meta‑analysis
Data extraction Tillage depth cannot be included as a continuous variable
Meta-data will be extracted for all studies. This infor- in a meta-regression since the relationship between till-
mation will include the following information: citation; age depth and soil C is non-linear. Instead, meta-analysis
study location (country, site, climate zone, latitude and will be separated into 3 sub-group comparisons for dif-
longitude); soil type (classification or percent clay/silt/ ferent pairs of interventions as follows: (1) no tillage ver-
sand); study description (start year, duration, treatments sus high intensity tillage; (2) moderate intensity tillage
investigated, cropping system, experimental design); versus high intensity tillage; (3) no tillage versus moder-
sampling strategy (spatial and temporal replication, sub- ate intensity tillage.
sampling, soil sampling depth, C measurement method).
In addition, quantitative data (i.e. study findings) will be Investigation of impacts on SOC across soil depths
described (outcome type, units, data location, measure of In order to maximise the use of information across the
variability, presence of bulk density) and extracted. Tillage evidence base, three sub-group analyses will be per-
categories for further synthesis will be assessed as belong- formed on different soil depths. Since meta-analyses
ing to one of the following three categories: no tillage, condense study results into single effect sizes, multidi-
moderate intensity tillage and high intensity tillage. This mensional results cannot be incorporated into single
assessment will be undertaken by extracting all interven- meta-analyses. Instead, sub-groups will be used to inves-
tions in the evidence base (machinery, tillage depth and tigate the influence of tillage at different soil depths. The
timing) and building a coding tool through which each three depths investigated will be 0–15, 15–30 and 30 cm
intervention will be coded into one of the above three cat- and below. Since studies understandably do not consist-
egories. This coding tool will be produced through discus- ently conform to these cutoffs, the following scheme of
sions between at least two members of the team, with the weighting will be used. Firstly, studies will be weighted
tillage description from all articles and the coded tillage according to the proportion of the depth bracket covered
category included in a database of all studies. by the study. For example, a study providing data from
Meta-data will be extracted into one database describ- 0 to 10  cm will be weighted using a factor of 0.67. Sec-
ing all studies, whilst quantitative data (i.e. study find- ondly, where studies provide data that overlap the bound-
ings) will be extracted into separate spreadsheets for ary between two depth brackets the data will be included
each study for transparency. Effect sizes for use in meta- in only one sub-group analysis, and it will be included in
analyses will then be calculated within each of these files the higher depth bracket for conservatism (since shal-
before being combined for analysis. Effect sizes used in lower depths see greater significant differences in SOC).
analyses will be raw mean difference expressed in g/kg for For example, a study presenting data for 0–20  cm will
concentrations or kg/ha for stocks (study findings stand- be included in the 0–15  cm depth bracket but given
ardised according to study duration). In order to account full weight. Thirdly, studies spanning more than two
for the potentially non-linear nature of changes to soil C, depth brackets (e.g. 0–45 cm) will be excluded from the
a categorical coding variable [coded as ‘short-term’ (10– three main sub-group analyses and included in a fourth
19  years), ‘medium-term’ (20–29) or ‘long-term’ (>29)] meta-analysis across all depths if sufficient studies are
for study duration will be included in meta-analyses as a identified.
Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 7 of 8

Meta‑analysis: sensitivity analyses Competing interests


The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Studies may not be includible in meta-analysis where
they do not report one of three key variables for each Received: 12 November 2015 Accepted: 7 January 2016
treatment: mean, variability measure (e.g. standard
deviation), and sample size (true spatial replication)
[39]. Many studies identified in the systematic map by
Haddaway et  al. [33] failed to report suitable measures References
of variability across all treatments that would facilitate 1. Batjes N, Dijkshoorn J. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in the soils of the
Amazon Region. Geoderma. 1999;89(3):273–86.
meta-analysis. However, in some instances an overall 2. Batjes N. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur J Soil Sci.
variability measure across intervention groups is pro- 1996;47(2):151–63.
vided that may be used as an estimate of variability. Fur- 3. Schlesinger WH. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. San
Diego: Academic Press, Inc.; 1991.
thermore, some studies report other summary results 4. Follett R. Soil management concepts and carbon sequestration in crop‑
that may be sufficient to calculate variability either land soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2001;61(1):77–92.
between or across interventions. For these cases where 5. Lal R, Kimble J, Follet R, Cole C. The potential of US cropland to sequester
carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1998.
variability is estimated, sensitivity analysis will be per- 6. Sauerbeck D. CO2 emissions and C sequestration by agriculture–perspec‑
formed both with and without the estimated variability tives and limitations. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2001;60(1–3):253–66.
studies to investigate the influence of less reliable meas- 7. Betts RA, Falloon PD, Goldewijk KK, Ramankutty N. Biogeophysical effects
of land use on climate: model simulations of radiative forcing and large-
ures on the review findings. As described above in Criti- scale temperature change. Agric For Meteorol. 2007;142(2):216–33.
cal Appraisal, sensitivity analysis will also be performed 8. Kucharik CJ, Brye KR, Norman JM, Foley JA, Gower ST, Bundy LG. Measure‑
to investigate the influence of ‘low’ reliability studies on ments and modeling of carbon and nitrogen cycling in agroecosystems
of southern Wisconsin: potential for SOC sequestration during the next
the review findings. 50 years. Ecosystems. 2001;4(3):237–58.
9. Reicosky D. Tillage-induced CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration:
Accounting for multiplicity of p values effect of secondary tillage and compaction. In: Garcia-Torres L, Benites J,
Martinez-Vilela A, Holgado-Cabrera A, editors. Conservation agriculture.
Since several subgroup analyses and sensitivity analy- Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publications; 2003. p. 291–300.
ses will be undertaken, the threshold for p value signifi- 10. Gonzalez-Sanchez EJ, Ordonez-Fernandez R, Carbonell-Bojollo R, Veroz-
cance should be adjusted conservatively depending on Gonzalez O, Gil-Ribes JA. Meta-analysis on atmospheric carbon capture
in Spain through the use of conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Res.
the number of a priori tests performed (three depth pro- 2012;122:52–60.
files, each with two sets of sensitivity analyses; a total of 11. Lal R, Delgado J, Groffman P, Millar N, Dell C, Rotz A. Management
12 tests). Emphasis will also be put on the magnitude of to mitigate and adapt to climate change. J Soil Water Conserv.
2011;66(4):276–85.
the significant findings (i.e. biological significance) rather 12. Bolinder M, Kätterer T, Andrén O, Ericson L, Parent L-E, Kirchmann H.
than significance itself. Long-term soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in forage-based
Meta-analyses will be summarised in tables (for sensi- crop rotations in Northern Sweden (63–64 N). Agric Ecosyst Environ.
2010;138(3):335–42.
tivity analysis and subgroup analysis results) and in for- 13. Lal R, Follett R. Soils and climate change. In: Lal R, Follett R, editors. Soil
est plots (for meta-analysis outputs). Forest plots will be carbon sequestration and the greenhouse effect, vol. 57. 2nd ed. Madi‑
summarised across groups (i.e. by effect modifiers) where son: SSSA Special Publication; 2009.
14. Hati KM, Swarup A, Dwivedi A, Misra A, Bandyopadhyay K. Changes in soil
the number of included studies is substantial. physical properties and organic carbon status at the topsoil horizon of a
vertisol of central India after 28 years of continuous cropping, fertilization
Authors’ contributions and manuring. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2007;119(1):127–34.
This review protocol is based on a draft written by NRH. All authors assisted 15. Yang X, Li P, Zhang S, Sun B, Xinping C. Long-term-fertilization effects on
in editing and revising the draft. All authors read and approved the final soil organic carbon, physical properties, and wheat yield of a loess soil. J
manuscript. Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2011;174(5):775–84.
16. Holland J. The environmental consequences of adopting conserva‑
Author details tion tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ.
1
 Mistra Council for Evidence‑Based Environmental Management (EviEM), 2004;103(1):1–25.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 50005, 104 05 Stockholm, 17. Barrios E. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecol Econ.
Sweden. 2 Department of Biology, Lund University, 223 62 Lund, Sweden. 2007;64(2):269–85.
3
 Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California Davis, 18. Kern J, Johnson M. Conservation tillage impacts on national soil and
One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA. 4 Department Ecology, SLU, P.O. atmospheric carbon levels. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1993;57(1):200–10.
Box 7044, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. 5 Joint Research Centre, Institute for Envi‑ 19. West TO, Post WM. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and
ronment and Sustainability, Land Resource Management, European Commis‑ crop rotation. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2002;66(6):1930–46.
sion, 21027 Ispra, VA, Italy. 6 Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, 20. Davies D, Finney J. Reduced cultivations for cereals: research, development
P.O. Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark. 7 Department of Statistics, Lund University, and advisory needs under changing economic circumstances. Research
220 07 Lund, Sweden. Review No. 48. Home Grown Cereals Authority, Kenilworth, UK, 2002.
21. Van den Putte A, Govers G, Diels J, Gillijns K, Demuzere M. Assessing
Acknowledgements the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: a meta-regression analysis
This protocol and the forthcoming review are financed by the Mistra Council on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. Eur J Agron.
for Evidence-Based Environmental Management (EviEM). The authors thank 2010;33(3):231–41.
two anonymous reviewers whose advice improved this protocol.
Haddaway et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:1 Page 8 of 8

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.

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central


and we will help you at every step:
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal
• We provide round the clock customer support
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
• Maximum visibility for your research

Submit your manuscript at


www.biomedcentral.com/submit

You might also like