Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gcwzt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T21:33:37.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in the physical properties of soils under conventional and no-tillage practices in temperate regions and simulations using selected agroecosystem models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2025

Jakub Bohuslav*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agriculture Systems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic
Kurt-Christian Kersebaum
Affiliation:
Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany Tropical Plant Production and Agricultural Systems Modeling (TROPAGS), University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
Claas Nendel
Affiliation:
Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
Eva Pohanková
Affiliation:
Institute of Agriculture Systems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic
Petr Hlavinka
Affiliation:
Institute of Agriculture Systems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic
Miroslav Trnka
Affiliation:
Institute of Agriculture Systems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic
Zdeněk Žalud
Affiliation:
Institute of Agriculture Systems and Bioclimatology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic Global Change Research Institute Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Brno, Czech Republic
*
Corresponding author: Jakub Bohuslav; Email: jakub.bohuslav@mendelu.cz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No-tillage (NT) systems are currently recommended because they are assumed to support more ecosystem services than conventional tillage (CT) systems. Although NT systems have shown long-term success in agriculture in subtropical regions, no clear evidence of NT-driven improvements in soil properties and crop growth conditions has been put forth in temperate climates. The current study summarizes the findings of 26 previously published studies, in which the authors compared 76 experimental sites in temperate regions to represent changes in soil bulk density (BD) and soil organic carbon (SOC) contents under tillage practices. The studies were grouped by soil texture and experiment duration, and the results were tested for significant changes under NT relative to CT. Statistically significant differences in SOC were found for loamy soils, and differences in BD were found for silty soils. For loamy soils, the average increase in the carbon (C) concentration was 0.16%, which corresponded to a C stock increase of 6.48 Mg C/ha and an increase of BD for silty soil 0.01 Mg/m3 in the NT system. Two agroecosystem models, HERMES2Go and MONICA, were tested for their sensitivity in simulating these differences in SOC between NT and CT systems. In a 60-year simulation, the HERMES2Go model predicted a C stock loss of 0.31 Mg C/ha under NT for loamy soils, whereas the MONICA model predicted a gain of 0.53 Mg C/ha. At present, neither model can effectively reproduce the increase in SOC content observed under NT in experiments.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis in Central Europe on replacing traditional conventional tillage (CT) with no-tillage (NT) soil management to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. The European Union aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level at least 55% below the 1990 levels by 2030, and the main goal is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 (European Commission, 2020). Reducing emissions from the industrial, heating and transport sectors is the main target. Nevertheless, carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is considered a key policy measure to sequester some of the CO2 present in the atmosphere into long-term storage (Olhoff and Christensen, Reference Olhoff and Christensen2020). The amount of carbon contained in the soil is two to four times greater than that in the atmosphere and four times greater than that stored in vegetation (Hussain et al., Reference Hussain, Guo, Sarwar, Ren, Krstic, Aslam, Zulifqar, Rauf, Hano and El–Esawi2021). Carbon is a natural component of soil; its active incorporation into the soil can increase the current levels of soil organic carbon (SOC) and reduce the amount of carbon present in the atmosphere, mitigating the effects of climate change (Hussain et al., Reference Hussain, Guo, Sarwar, Ren, Krstic, Aslam, Zulifqar, Rauf, Hano and El–Esawi2021; Li et al., Reference Li, He, Guo, Zhang and Li2021). Throughout history, tillage has been part of field practices in crop production. The tillage practice was initially targeted to ensure good contact between seeds and soil for proper seedling emergence. Over time soil tilling has evolved into a technique that is also used to mix crop residues with soil to foster rapid decomposition before the next crop is sown. Tillage influences many soil physical properties, such as bulk density (BD), pore size distribution, hydraulic conductivity, water infiltration rate, soil aggregate size and stability and structure, and leads to the redistribution of SOC in the tilled soil horizon (Maharjan et al., Reference Maharjan, Prescher, Nendel, Ewert, Mboh, Gaiser and Seidel2018). Furthermore, well-timed mechanical tillage of soil can kill weeds (Cordeau et al., Reference Cordeau, Smith, Gallandt, Brown, Salon, DiTommaso and Ryan2017), and surface tillage (harrowing, hoeing) for weed control can be applied even when a crop has already emerged, allowing for multiple weeding operations during a season.

In some cropping systems, farmers and researchers see good reasons for not tilling the soil because this approach supports carbon sequestration (Sombrero and De Bonito, Reference Sombrero and De Benito2010; Huang et al., Reference Huang, Liang, Wang and Zhou2015; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Cao, Zhang, Cui, Guo, Shen, Zhou, Han and Ning2022), which is related to an increase in the formation of macroaggregates (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Liang, Wang and Zhou2015; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Cao, Zhang, Cui, Guo, Shen, Zhou, Han and Ning2022) and an overall increase in soil biological functions (Kladivko, Reference Kladivko2001; Mbuthia et al., Reference Mbuthia, Acosta–Martínez, DeBruyn, Schaeffer, Tyler, Odoi, Mpheshea, Walker and Eash2015; Fiorini et al., Reference Fiorini, Boselli, Maris, Santelli, Perego, Acutis, Brenna and Tabaglio2020). The main approach in NT involves direct seeding without disturbing the soil surface. The most common method of direct sowing involves the use of a disc furrower to cut crop residues and open a slit in the soil, into which a seed is placed; the slit is then closed by a press wheel. With this approach, the soil surface remains covered with plant residues (Nichols et al., Reference Nichols, Verhulst, Cox and Govaerts2015; Villamil et al., Reference Villamil, Little and Nafziger2015; Kinoshita et al., Reference Kinoshita, Schindelbeck and Van Es2017). This mulch layer protects the soil from erosion (Strohmeier et al., Reference Strohmeier, Laaha, Holzmann and Klik2016; Lal, Reference Lal2019; Hussain et al., Reference Hussain, Guo, Sarwar, Ren, Krstic, Aslam, Zulifqar, Rauf, Hano and El–Esawi2021) and reduces evaporation from the soil (Kinoshita et al., Reference Kinoshita, Schindelbeck and Van Es2017; Liebhard et al., Reference Liebhard, Klik, Neugschwandtner and Nolz2022). Moreover, NT is a way to reduce costs for farmers (Soane et al., Reference Soane, Ball, Arvidsson, Basch, Moreno and Roger–Estrade2012), as fewer field passes are needed, which reduces fuel consumption and labour costs (Komissarov and Klik, Reference Komissarov and Klik2020). In addition, repeated ploughing to the same depth can lead to the formation of a compact layer at the bottom of the ploughing layer (hardpan), which reduces root growth beyond that depth (Batey, Reference Batey2009). The periodic mixing of soil each year causes a reduction in the number of aggregates with C storage capacity (Sekaran et al., Reference Sekaran, Sagar and Kumar2021) and in soil aggregate stability (Sapkota et al., Reference Sapkota, Mazzoncini, Bàrberi, Antichi and Silvestri2012), which is accompanied by a faster decomposition of biomass (Liang and Zhu, Reference Liang and Zhu2021; Wulanningtyas et al., Reference Wulanningtyas, Gong, Li, Sakagami, Nishiwaki and Komatsuzaki2021) and thus an increase in the rate of carbon dioxide release (Sombrero and De Benito, Reference Sombrero and De Benito2010; Karlen et al., Reference Karlen, Cambardella, Kovar and Colvin2013). Therefore, it is assumed that abandoning practices in which the soil is frequently mixed can result in a reduction in CO2 emissions from fields. Nevertheless, there is a downside to not tilling soil: farmers express concerns about higher amounts of postharvest residues with subsequent problems related to inhomogeneous seed emergence and the lack of weed control, which increases the demand for herbicides (Van Donk et al., Reference Van Donk, Martin, Irmak, Melvin, Petersen and Davison2010).

Long-term repeated tillage leads to the gradual degradation of soil in arable land and to irreversible environmental changes (Hussain et al., Reference Hussain, Guo, Sarwar, Ren, Krstic, Aslam, Zulifqar, Rauf, Hano and El–Esawi2021). Conservation tillage systems reverse this process and improve soil quality (Karlen et al., Reference Karlen, Cambardella, Kovar and Colvin2013; Idowu et al., Reference Idowu, Sultana, Darapuneni, Beck and Steiner2019). However, these effects often do not result from reduced tillage alone but from a suite of management strategies that include diverse crop rotations and intermediate crop planting (Serri et al., Reference Serri, Pérez–Brandan, Meriles, Salvagiotti, Bacigaluppo, Malmantile and Vargas–Gil2022). In NT systems that leave the soil surface almost untouched, a surface mulch layer is generated over time, which hosts a rich population of soil fauna and microorganisms (Kladivko, Reference Kladivko2001), and these systems look like organic farming. This contrasts with the widespread use of herbicides in NT systems (Okada et al., Reference Okada, Costa and Bedmar2016, Reference Okada, Costa and Bedmar2019), among which glyphosate is the most common. While herbicides help to efficiently control weeds, they can affect the activity of soil microorganisms (Kladivko, Reference Kladivko2001; Vazquez et al., Reference Vazquez, Benito, Espejo and Teutscherova2019) and are suspected to be a cause of the significant declines in insect numbers observed over the past decades in agricultural landscapes (Habel et al., Reference Habel, Samways and Schmitt2019), with consequences for the wider food chain (Noman et al., Reference Noman, Aqeel, Qasim, Haider and Lou2020).

Literature suggests that the success of NT strategies strongly depends on the pedoclimatic conditions of individual sites. To determine whether NT practices help to reduce CO2 emissions from agriculture without compromising the agronomic benefits of CT, the literature was reviewed to compare the effects of NT and CT on the changes in the SOC content and BD in temperate climates under these systems. All the studies analysed included values for SOC and BD under CT and NT, and a more detailed description of the differences in management practices, crops, fertilization rates and types, plot sizes and experiment durations is available in the supplementary materials. Experiments were performed on similar soils at each location, to at least a depth of 30 cm (topsoil), and the soils were classified by soil texture or soil composition for further analysis. It was hypothesized that NT would increase topsoil SOC over time, whereas the soil BD under NT would be almost the same as that under CT (no compaction). The use of soil compaction as an indicator to evaluate the effects of CT versus NT has often been discussed, as it manifests differently under different site conditions (Batey, Reference Batey2009). Some studies have shown a reduction in BD under NT (e.g. Chen et al., Reference Chen, Bai, Wang, Chen, Li, Tullberg, Murray, Gao and Gong2008; Alam et al., Reference Alam, Islam, Salahin and Hasanuzzaman2014; Alhameid et al., Reference Alhameid, Ibrahim, Kumar, Sexton and Schumacher2017; Sekaran et al., Reference Sekaran, Sagar and Kumar2021), whereas others have reported increases in BD and compaction under NT (e.g. Ogle et al., Reference Ogle, Breidt and Paustian2005; Soane et al., Reference Soane, Ball, Arvidsson, Basch, Moreno and Roger–Estrade2012; Sapkota et al., Reference Sapkota, Mazzoncini, Bàrberi, Antichi and Silvestri2012; Dai et al., Reference Dai, Li, Ouyang, Wang and Wilson2013; Villamil et al., Reference Villamil, Little and Nafziger2015) across different climatic zones. However, changes in BD cannot be assessed without considering changes in SOC, as both properties influence each other (Sekaran et al., Reference Sekaran, Sagar and Kumar2021).

The current study was also interested in determining whether agroecosystem models are currently able to reproduce the effects of different tillage strategies. A properly calibrated mechanistic model can predict future developments in crop production and related greenhouse gas emissions under changing conditions (e.g. global warming) (Nendel et al., Reference Nendel, Kersebaum, Mirschel and Wenkel2014). In the current research, two mechanistic agroecosystem models, the HERMES (Kersebaum, Reference Kersebaum2007) and MONICA (Nendel et al., Reference Nendel, Berg, Kersebaum, Mirschel, Specka, Wegehenkel, Wenkel and Wieland2011) models, were tested for their ability to reproduce differences in SOC under the CT and NT systems. The soil properties, including SOC and BD, were determined to be close to the original values for each soil type when typical climatic data and crop rotation data for the Czech Republic were used. The main goal of the study was to obtain independent results from available sources and increase understanding of whether (i) NT is a plausible alternative for crop production in the context of climate adaptation and climate change mitigation in temperate regions and (ii) whether currently available simulation models are fit for supporting this decision-making process.

Materials and methods

The current study analysed data from multiple field experiments conducted in temperate climatic regions to compare the effects of NT and CT systems on two key soil parameters – BD and SOC. These parameters were evaluated across a range of soil types and experimental durations. Data were collected from independent sources to ensure objectivity and allow for broader generalization. Detailed descriptions of the individual experiments, including site characteristics and management practices, are provided in the supplementary material to support the reproducibility and transparency of the analysis.

The following criteria were defined for this analysis:

  1. a) Depth

NT agriculture implies that the organic matter remains close to the soil surface. Consequently, SOC values only increase within the top few centimetres of the soil profile, and C transport to lower soil layers is an extremely slow process. In the analysed experiments, some sites involved transitions from long-term CT to NT systems, allowing the assessment of changes in SOC distribution across soil layers in the absence of continued organic matter incorporation through ploughing. Sampling depth is therefore an important parameter for determining the SOC content. Studies comparing tillage practices at different locations have shown an increase in SOC in the topsoil (0–10 cm, Álvaro-Fuentes et al., Reference Álvaro–Fuentes, López, Cantero–Martínez and Arrúe2008; 0–15 cm, Villamil et al., Reference Villamil, Little and Nafziger2015) under NT. However, deeper soil profiles (0–60 cm) presented no significant differences in carbon sequestration in CT and NT systems (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, Reference Blanco–Canqui and Lal2008) or even showed a lower content of SOC in the subsoil in NT systems (Christopher et al., Reference Christopher, Lal and Mishra2009). In the current study, a depth of 0–30 cm was used. CT is often performed to a maximum depth of 30 cm, and for this reason, the comparison was performed at this depth.

  1. b) Soil type

The second parameter monitored that affects the SOC and BD contents is soil texture (Blanco-Canqui and Lal, Reference Blanco–Canqui and Lal2008). In theory, clay soils have a much greater potential to protect SOM against decomposition than arenic soils (Kaiser and Zech, Reference Kaiser and Zech2000). It was expected that soils with clay minerals and very small pores would respond more significantly to changes in the distribution of organic matter input over the long term. For this reason, all reports used in the current study were sorted into four soil texture categories according to the World Reference Base (WRB) for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022) and were investigated separately (Fig. 1).

  1. c) Experiment duration

Figure 1. Overview of the duration of the studies analysed. The colours refer to soil textures according to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022).

A third important criterion is the time required for soil properties to show differences that can be detected with certainty in the CT and NT systems. This timeframe often exceeds 10 years (Christopher et al., Reference Christopher, Lal and Mishra2009). Therefore, a subset of the data, for which the duration of the experiment was longer than 10 years, was investigated separately.

Database

All the data used in the current study were collected from studies containing the required parameters for the two different tillage management practices (CT, NT) via the search engines (Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar) for the period from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2023. An overview of the analysed articles is provided in the supplementary material because several of the studies compared sites at different locations with different experimental durations or management methods.

The search keywords ‘no-till’ OR ‘zero tillage’ OR ‘conservative tillage’ AND ‘conventional tillage’ AND ‘soil carbon’ OR ‘SOC’ AND ‘bulk density’ were used to search for peer-reviewed articles. The inclusion criteria for the articles were as follows:

  1. a) The observed data were from real field experiments (plot or field).

  2. b) The SOC and BD values were measured in soil under different tillage practices (CT, NT) at the end of the experiment, at specific depths (tables or graphs), at the same site or at sites that were very close.

  3. c) The experiment was performed in a temperate climatic zone.

  4. d) Other monitored parameters were recorded: experiment duration, country, coordinates, temperature, precipitation, plot size, crop type, residue management practices, fertilizers used and soil classification.

A total of 26 studies with 72 experimental sites were selected for comparison. On the basis of the assumption that soil texture affects SOC mineralization and BD, the selected studies were divided into four different textural classes (Fig. 1). The textural boundaries for each class were based on the WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022). Data analyses of the model outputs were performed via the R statistical programming language in RStudio (RStudio Team, 2020), version 4.4.0 (R Core Team, 2020) and Microsoft Excel (2024).

Analysis

In the current study, continuous randomized effects (Borenstein et al., Reference Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins and Rothstein2009) were used to assess changes in SOC and BD in the topsoil (0–30 cm) over time under CT and NT practices. Additional variables listed in the supplementary material (e.g. plot size, cultivated crops or fertilizer management) were also examined and recorded. The measured values at different depths were integrated into a weighted summary value, primarily for BD and SOC.

For SOC determination, automated gas analysers are commonly used to measure total soil carbon, but they do not distinguish between organic and inorganic carbon, as both forms are converted to CO2 during analysis. However, the methods used to determine SOC are explicitly stated in each referenced study. The primary objective was to utilize SOC values specifically for CT and NT systems, as determined within a single experiment with comparable soil properties. The SOC values were recalculated as accurately as possible following standard practices. Ideally, each study reported SOC in both concentration (‘%’) and stock (‘Mg/ha’); if only one value was available, a conversion formula was applied to calculate the missing one.

For the conversion of SOC reported in Mg/ha (or conversely to % – appropriately modified), the formula in Tadiello et al. (Reference Tadiello, Perego, Valkama, Schillaci and Acutis2022) (without stone content) was used:

(1) $$SOC\;\left( \% \right) = {{SOC\left( {Mg/ha} \right)} \over {BD\left( {Mg/\;{m^3}} \right) \cdot LT\left( m \right)}} \cdot 100$$

where SOC (Mg/ha) is the stock of SOC within the selected depth, BD (Mg/m 3 ) denotes the bulk density within the same depth and LT (m) denotes the selected depth to which the SOC stock is calculated (in the current study: 0.3 m).

Student’s t-test (Student, 1908) was used to determine significant differences between the means of the two groups, which, in this case, involved differences under CT and NT among the four textural classes.

Simulating the outcomes of different tillage practices via two agroecosystem models

Two established agroecosystem models, the HERMES (Kersebaum, Reference Kersebaum2007) and MONICA (Nendel et al., Reference Nendel, Berg, Kersebaum, Mirschel, Specka, Wegehenkel, Wenkel and Wieland2011) models, were applied to test whether the models can capture the differences in SOC that emerge from different tillage practices. The value of bulk density is one of the basic input parameters that change range during the crop season, but SOC offers higher dynamics over a longer period, especially in the topic of carbon sequestration. Both models are designed to simulate soil–crop interactions for crop rotations and have been applied frequently in Central Europe (e.g. Kollas et al., Reference Kollas, Kersebaum, Nendel, Manevski, Müller, Palosuo, Armas–Herrera, Beaudoin, Bindi, Charfeddine, Conradt, Constantin, Eitzinger, Ewert, Ferrise, Gaiser, García de Cortázar–Atauri, Giglio, Hlavinka, Hoffmann, Hoffmann, Launay, Manderscheid, Mary, Mirschel, Moriondo, Olesen, Öztürk, Pacholski, Ripoche–Wachter, Roggero, Roncossek, Rötter, Ruget, Sharif, Trnka, Ventrella, Waha, Wegehenkel, Weigel and Wu2015; Yin et al., Reference Yin, Kersebaum, Kollas, Manevski, Baby, Beaudoin, Öztürk, Gaiser, Wu, Hoffmann, Charfeddine, Conradt, Constantin, Ewert, García de Cortázar–Atauri, Giglio, Hlavinka, Hoffmann, Launay, Louarn, Manderscheid, Mary, Mirschel, Nendel, Pacholski, Palosuo, Ripoche–Wachter, Rötter, Ruget, Sharif, Trnka, Ventrella, Weigel and Olesen2017; Pohanková et al., Reference Pohanková, Hlavinka, Kersebaum, Rodríguez, Balek, Bednařík, Dubrovský, Gobin, Hoogenboom, Moriondo, Nendel, Olesen, Rötter, Ruiz–Ramos, Shelia, Stella, Hoffmann, Takáč, Eitzinger, Dibari, Ferrise, Bláhová and Trnka2022). Both models work on similar principles and input datasets. However, HERMES was originally a nitrogen model and uses a constant C:N ratio to calculate the SOC from two active and one inert organic N pools (Kersebaum, Reference Kersebaum2007), whereas MONICA is a complete carbon and nitrogen model that uses the DAISY (Hansen et al., Reference Hansen, Jensen, Nielsen and Svendsen1991; Jensen et al., Reference Jensen, Mueller, Bruun and Hansen2001) approach involving seven carbon pools. Both models simulate the effect of soil tillage by averaging the soil properties and state variables of the impacted soil layers at the date of a tillage event. Both models use a 0.1 m thickness to discretize the soil into layers; i.e. tillage to a depth of 0.1 m or less has no effect on the two models (Maharjan et al., Reference Maharjan, Prescher, Nendel, Ewert, Mboh, Gaiser and Seidel2018).

The simulation in the current study was partly inspired by Pohanková et al. (Reference Pohanková, Hlavinka, Kersebaum, Rodríguez, Balek, Bednařík, Dubrovský, Gobin, Hoogenboom, Moriondo, Nendel, Olesen, Rötter, Ruiz–Ramos, Shelia, Stella, Hoffmann, Takáč, Eitzinger, Dibari, Ferrise, Bláhová and Trnka2022). The current study used the same crop rotation and meteorological datasets for Domanínek (49°32´ N, 16°15´ E, 530 m a.s.l.), a locality situated in the Czech Republic which experimental field data have previously been used for model simulations (e.g. Hlavinka et al., Reference Hlavinka, Trnka, Kersebaum, Takáč, Balek, Semerádová and Žalud2015; Pohanková et al., Reference Pohanková, Hlavinka, Kersebaum, Rodríguez, Balek, Bednařík, Dubrovský, Gobin, Hoogenboom, Moriondo, Nendel, Olesen, Rötter, Ruiz–Ramos, Shelia, Stella, Hoffmann, Takáč, Eitzinger, Dibari, Ferrise, Bláhová and Trnka2022; Thaler et al., Reference Thaler, Pohankova, Eitzinger, Hlavinka, Orság, Lukas, Brtnický, Růžek, Šimečková, Ghisi, Bohuslav, Klem and Trnka2023).

Both models were tested for the sensitivity of SOC content to different tillage practices. The main difference between the CT and NT simulations was that ploughing was omitted from the NT part; otherwise, identical input data were used for both models, including SOC content (range of SOC values for loamy textural classes for CT); it was assumed that this range would be theoretically valid for central Europe. The soil texture parameters were generated separately for each location for loamy textural classes (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Loamy textural classes and the amount of clay, silt, and sand fractions were used as soil texture characteristics in the models.

A crop rotation of four crops over a 5-year period was used in the following order: winter wheat, spring barley, silage maize, winter wheat and winter oilseed rape (Pohanková et al., Reference Pohanková, Hlavinka, Kersebaum, Rodríguez, Balek, Bednařík, Dubrovský, Gobin, Hoogenboom, Moriondo, Nendel, Olesen, Rötter, Ruiz–Ramos, Shelia, Stella, Hoffmann, Takáč, Eitzinger, Dibari, Ferrise, Bláhová and Trnka2022). The dates of sowing, harvest and mineral fertilization were automatically determined by the model using temperature and soil moisture triggers within a given temporal window to find ideal conditions. Postharvest residues were left in the field in both treatments (CT and NT). Meteorological data from Domanínek (Czech Republic) were used for all simulations.

The models were run for the period between 1951 and 2021, including a 10-year spin-up. The spin-up period was designed such that both models arrived at the SOC values, specified in the literature review. Consequently, since the two models applied different approaches for SOM turnover, the initial values to start the spin-up period were different for the two models.

HERMES2Go

HERMES is a crop model based on plant–soil–atmospheric interaction processes for arable land in agriculture (Kersebaum, Reference Kersebaum2007). During its history and development, it has been calibrated several times for SOC modelling studies (e.g. Kersebaum Reference Kersebaum2007; Hlavinka et al., Reference Hlavinka, Trnka, Kersebaum, Takáč, Balek, Semerádová and Žalud2015; Grosz et al., Reference Grosz, Dechow, Gebbert, Hoffmann, Zhao, Constantin, Raynal, Wallach, Coucheney, Lewan, Eckersten, Specka, Kersebaum, Nendel, Kuhnert, Yeluripati, Haas, Teixeira, Bindi, Trombi, Moriondo, Doro, Roggero, Zhao, Wang, Tao, Rötter, Kassie, Cammarano, Asseng, Weihermüller, Siebert and Ewert2017). The model can consider processes of plant growth and N uptake, which are related to net mineralization, denitrification and the transport of water and nitrate, which are modified by temperature, soil moisture and clay content (Kersebaum, Reference Kersebaum2007). Soil organic matter is represented in HERMES by only two Norg pools with different turnover rates, with the size of the slowly decomposable pool being initialized as 13% of the total soil organic nitrogen. The SOC is derived daily from Norg by assuming a constant C/N ratio. Ploughing is implemented by averaging all the soil properties and state variables over the ploughing depth at the time of the ploughing event. The model has been modified from its initial version, and model calculations for large datasets have recently been accelerated with the use of a new programming language. Detailed model concepts, including descriptions, are available in Kersebaum (Reference Kersebaum1995), Kersebaum and Beblik (Reference Kersebaum, Beblik, Shaffer, Ma and Hansen2001), Kersebaum (Reference Kersebaum2007) and Kersebaum (Reference Kersebaum2011). The new version, called HERMES2Go, was used in the current study (version 0.3.1).

MONICA

The second model used, MONICA (MOdel for NItrogen and Carbon in Agroecosystems), was built primarily on the concept of HERMES and was developed to predict the impact of climate change on the environment and agriculture (Nendel et al., Reference Nendel, Berg, Kersebaum, Mirschel, Specka, Wegehenkel, Wenkel and Wieland2011). For this purpose, it has been extended for the soil and plant carbon cycles on the basis of the DAISY model (Hansen et al., Reference Hansen, Jensen, Nielsen and Svendsen1991; Jensen et al., Reference Jensen, Mueller, Bruun and Hansen2001). The model uses crop-specific parameters, which describe the physiology and development of a large range of crops, including wheat (Asseng et al., Reference Asseng, Ewert, Rosenzweig, Jones, Hatfield, Ruane, Boote, Thorburn, Rötter, Cammarano, Brisson, Basso, Martre, Aggarwal, Angulo, Bertuzzi, Biernath, Challinor, Doltra, Gayler, Goldberg, Grant, Heng, Hooker, Hunt, Ingwersen, Izaurralde, Kersebaum, Müller, Naresh Kumar, Nendel, O’Leary, Olesen, Osborne, Palosuo, Priesack, Ripoche, Semenov, Shcherbak, Steduto, Stöckle, Stratonovitch, Streck, Supit, Tao, Travasso, Waha, Wallach, White, Williams and Wolf2013; Dueri et al., Reference Dueri, Brown, Asseng, Ewert, Webber, George, Craigie, Guarin, Pequeno, Stella, Ahmed, Alderman, Basso, Berger, Bracho Mujica, Cammarano, Chen, Dumont, Eyshi Rezaei, Fereres, Ferrise, Gaiser, Gao, Garcia–Vila, Gayler, Hochman, Hoogenboom, Kersebaum, Nendel, Olesen, Padovan, Palosuo, Priesack, Pullens, Rodríguez, Rötter, Ruiz Ramos, Semenov, Senapati, Siebert, Srivastava, Stöckle, Supit, Tao, Thorburn, Wang, Weber, Xiao, Zhao, Zhao, Zhao, Zhu and Martre2022), barley (Rötter et al., Reference Rötter, Palosuo, Kersebaum, Angulo, Bindi, Ewert, Ferrise, Hlavinka, Moriondo, Nendel, Olesen, Patil, Ruget, Takáč and Trnka2012; Salo et al., Reference Salo, Palosuo, Kersebaum, Nendel, Angulo, Ewert, Bindi, Calanca, Klein, Moriondo, Ferrise, Olesen, Patil, Ruget, Takáč, Hlavinka, Trnka and Rötter2016), maize (Bassu et al., Reference Bassu, Brisson, Durand, Boote, Lizaso, Jones, Rosenzweig, Ruane, Adam, Baron, Basso, Biernath, Boogaard, Conijn, Corbeels, Deryng, De Sanctis, Gayler, Grassini, Hatfield, Hoek, Izaurralde, Jongschaap, Kemanian, Kersebaum, Kim, Kumar, Makowski, Müller, Nendel, Priesack, Pravia, Sau, Shcherbak, Tao, Teixeira, Timlin and Waha2014; Durand et al., Reference Durand, Delusca, Boote, Lizaso, Manderscheid, Weigel, Ruane, Rosenzweig, Jones, Ahuja, Anapalli, Basso, Baron, Bertuzzi, Biernath, Deryng, Ewert, Gaiser, Gayler, Heinlein, Kersebaum, Kim, Müller, Nendel, Olioso, Priesack, Ramirez Villegas, Ripoche, Rötter, Seidel, Srivastava, Tao, Timlin, Twine, Wang, Webber and Zhao2018), oilseed rape (Wang et al., Reference Wang, He, Wang, Lilley, Christy, Hoffmann, O’Leary, Hatfield, Ledda, Deligios, Grant, Jing, Nendel, Kage, Qian, Eyshi Rezaei, Smith, Weymann and Ewert2022) and soybean (Battisti et al., Reference Battisti, Sentelhas and Boote2017; Nendel et al., Reference Nendel, Reckling, Debaeke, Schulz, Berg–Mohnicke, Constantin, Fronzek, Hoffmann, Jakšić, Kersebaum, Klimek–Kopyra, Raynal, Schoving, Stella and Battisti2023), at daily time steps. Soil organic matter turnover is governed by temperature, moisture and clay content (Aiteew et al., Reference Aiteew, Rouhiainen, Nendel and Dechow2024) and decreases with increasing soil depth, mimicking the decrease in oxygen concentration typically observed at deeper soil depths. MONICA has been intensively tested and successfully calibrated for its ability to reproduce short-term (Specka et al., Reference Specka, Nendel, Hagemann, Pohl, Hoffmann, Barkusky, Augustin, Sommer and Van Oost2016; Khaledi et al., Reference Khaledi, Kamali, Lischeid, Dietrich, Davies and Nendel2024) and long-term (Farina et al., Reference Farina, Sándor, Abdalla, Álvaro–Fuentes, Bechini, Bolinder, Brilli, Chenu, Clivot, De Antoni Migliorati, Di Bene, Dorich, Ehrhardt, Ferchaud, Fitton, Francaviglia, Franko, Giltrap, Grant, Guenet, Harrison, Kirschbaum, Kuka, Kulmala, Liski, McGrath, Meier, Menichetti, Moyano, Nendel, Recous, Reibold, Shepherd, Smith, Smith, Soussana, Stella, Taghizadeh–Toosi, Tsutskikh and Bellocchi2021; Aiteew et al., Reference Aiteew, Rouhiainen, Nendel and Dechow2024; Couëdel et al., Reference Couëdel, Falconnier, Adam, Cardinael, Boote, Justes, Smith, Whitbread, Affholder, Balkovic, Basso, Bhatia, Chakrabarti, Chikowo, Christina, Faye, Ferchaud, Folberth, Akinseye, Gaiser, Galdos, Gayler, Gorooei, Grant, Guibert, Hoogenboom, Kamali, Laub, Maureira, Mequanint, Nendel, Porter, Ripoche, Ruane, Rusinamhodzi, Sharma, Singh, Six, Srivastava, Vanlauwe, Versini, Vianna, Webber, Weber, Zhang and Corbeels2024) C dynamics in agricultural soil–atmosphere systems.

A detailed description of the model is available at https://github.com/zalf-rpm/monica/wiki. MONICA version 3.3.1 was used in the current study.

Results

Locality descriptions

Using keywords, 76 experimental sites from 26 studies were identified that contained the values required for BD and SOC content under the CT and NT systems. All the experimental sites are depicted in Fig. 3. The background of the map represents the global aridity index (Trabuco and Zomer, Reference Trabucco and Zomer2022), which is the ratio of the mean annual precipitation to the mean annual reference evapotranspiration. Given that the dataset was limited to temperate climatic conditions and similar soil management practices, most of the sites were located in North America (mainly the USA) and Europe. The colour of the points in Fig. 3 indicates different texture classes according to the WRB (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022).

Figure 3. Map of the global aridity index, where points denote the sites analysed in the current study and classified by soil texture (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022).

Changes in bulk density

The left upper part in Fig. 4 represents detected changes in BD for all studies. The results of the comparison of all the experiments and the durations of experiments lasting longer than 10 years (Fig. 4, lower left) show similar patterns. The t-test revealed a statistically significant difference only for silty soils, even though a slight increase in compaction was observed for both of the well-represented soil classes (silty and loamy soils). For the other two classes, the number of data points was much smaller and was too small to detect significant changes. The supplementary material shows that, on average, the increase in BD of the silty soil under NT was 0.01 Mg/m3, with no difference observed across all the experiments or for those with measurements older than ten years.

Figure 4. Effects of NT management on soil BD and SOC. The upper plots contain data from all the studies (experiments), and the lower plots contain data from experiments lasting longer than 10 years. The t-test result is represented by a P value when the significant correlation value S * is less than 0.05 and S ** is less than 0.01. The colours of point and linear regression lines (dashed) refer to the WRB soil qualifiers. Note that the soil texture classes arenic and clayey contain a very small number of samples.

Changes in soil organic carbon

The SOC dynamics were compared both in terms of concentration (Fig. 4, centre column) and as the SOC stock, which includes the soil bulk density (Fig. 4, right column). The SOC stocks show a trend similar to that of concentration, but in some cases, slightly different results are noticeable, according to the values given in the selected studies. The SOC concentrations for all the studies significantly increased for both the loamy and clayey soils. In contrast, the soils that were most represented, silty soils, did not show any significant changes. For studies containing experimental data older than ten years, clayey soils have inconclusive differences in SOC content. However, similar to arenic soils, only two studies included clayey soils in this group. Additionally, with respect to the C stocks, the loamy soils were the only group that presented significantly greater SOC stocks under NT than under CT; all other soil textural classes showed no statistically significant differences. The difference in the significance level for C concentrations and C stocks in the clayey soils is explained by the fact that we consistently used the values that were reported in the respective studies, even when a different formula was used for interconversion. Equation 1 was only used for studies that reported either C concentrations or C stocks.

For the loamy soils, the average increase in C concentration was 0.16%, which corresponds to a C stock increase of 6.48 Mg C/ha across all years and of 0.20% or 8.45 Mg C/ha for experiments with durations longer than 10 years. The slope of the CT–NT regression in both durations indicates that, for higher SOC contents, the SOC-increasing effect of NT was greater than that for lower SOC contents.

HERMES2Go and MONICA simulations

Since significant SOC differences between CT and NT were observed only for loamy soils, the capability of the models was tested only for the subset of sites with loamy soils. The SOC concentration in the simulations was compared at the end, after a continuous run of 60 years from 1961 to 2020 (with a spin-up period 1951–1961). While the HERMES2Go model generally predicted decreasing SOC concentrations over time under NT compared with those under CT, MONICA predicted increasing SOC concentrations, as suggested by the observed data. In general, both models showed only slight differences in SOC dynamics between the NT and CT systems at the end of the simulation (Figs. 5 and 6). After the spin-up period, both models started from SOC concentrations that corresponded to the CT values of the experimental data at each location, which covered a range of 0.004–0.025 kg C/kg or 21.80–108.11 Mg C/ha. After 60 years of simulation, the HERMES2Go simulation values remained closer to those initial values, arriving at 0.004–0.023 kg C/kg (Fig. 7), or 21.65–96.96 Mg C/ha, with an average loss of C stocks over 60 years under NT of –0.308 Mg C/ha. In contrast, the MONICA-simulated values ranged from 0.008 to 0.021 kg C/kg (Fig. 8) or 43.02 to 91.52 Mg C/ha under NT, with an average increase of 0.529 Mg C/ha, corresponding to an average increase of 1.33% of the initial values. The MONICA simulations also resulted in a slightly larger range of SOC concentrations for CT than for NT, indicating that SOC accumulation in the top layer under NT led to more uniform SOC dynamics across sites.

Figure 5. Results at the end of the 60-year simulation of SOC dynamics via HERMES2Go on the loamy soil subset of the experimental data for CT and NT management. The blue points represent the experimental data as references, with a linear regression and confidence interval applied. The black points represent the results of the simulations in HERMES2Go, which are close to the identity line (grey colour).

Figure 6. Results at the end of the 60-year simulation of SOC dynamics via MONICA on the loamy soil subset of the experimental data for CT and NT management. The blue points represent the experimental data as references, with a linear regression and confidence interval applied. The black points represent the results of the simulations in MONICA, which are close to the identity line (grey colour).

Figure 7. Results of a 60-year simulation of SOC content using the HERMES2Go model for CT and NT on different soils. The soil characteristics and initial SOC values for a 10-year spin-up period (1951–1960) were selected according to the soils identified in the experiments presented in the review section of the current study.

Figure 8. Results of a 60-year simulation of SOC content using the MONICA model for CT and NT on different soils. The soil characteristics and initial SOC values for a 10-year spin-up period (1951–1960) were selected according to the soils identified in the experiments presented in the review section of the current study.

The results of both models (Figs. 7 and 8) represent trends in the SOC content (%) of the upper 30 cm of soil, and a wider range was determined for CT at the end of the simulation using the 5th and 95th percentiles. The results of the HERMES2Go model (Fig. 7) indicate smaller differences, whereas the MONICA model (Fig. 8) shows greater differences between the CT and NT systems. However, both models show a greater content of SOC in CT than in NT. A smoother inner-annual dynamic was expected with the HERMES2Go approach since the model does not consider a temporal increase in the C:N ratio caused by the introduction of crop residues with high C:N ratios, such as straw.

Discussion

Effects of no-tillage on soil properties

A range of studies have investigated the effects of NT on soil properties. The total duration of NT and soil texture are the main parameters affecting BD, wet aggregate stability and penetration resistance (Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, Reference Blanco–Canqui and Ruis2018). Leaving postharvest residues on the soil surface is likely the most influential factor (Kinoshita et al., Reference Kinoshita, Schindelbeck and Van Es2017). Crop residues on the soil surface support an increase in humidity and a uniform temperature in the topsoil, providing favourable conditions for microorganisms (Kladivko, Reference Kladivko2001; Li et al., Reference Li, He, Guo, Zhang and Li2021). The effect of these factors on microbial activity, in turn, influences the chemical and physical properties of the soil (Serri et al., Reference Serri, Pérez–Brandan, Meriles, Salvagiotti, Bacigaluppo, Malmantile and Vargas–Gil2022). In general, NT, in combination with other fertility-enhancing measures, has been reported to have a strong positive impact on soil quality and health (Wulanningtyas et al., Reference Wulanningtyas, Gong, Li, Sakagami, Nishiwaki and Komatsuzaki2021). However, the emphasis should be on the need for further research into how SOC from surface residues in NT systems can improve soil porosity, biopore formation and resistance to compaction, as well as the long-term recovery of soil structure after tillage and machinery traffic (Silva et al., Reference Silva, Dos Santos, Lollato, Santi and Fontaneli2023).

Changes in bulk density

Bulk density is an important indicator of soil quality, and many farmers are concerned about increasing soil compaction. In many cases, the impact of NT on soil compaction has been found to be rather short-lived (Mondal et al., Reference Mondal, Chakraborty, Bandyopadhyay, Aggarwal and Rana2020). The current study revealed, on average, no relevant changes for loamy, sandy or clayey sites at which NT was previously implemented, but significant increases in BD were identified in silty soils. In the current work, a difference greater than 0.1 Mg/m3 was found in six localities in the USA, whereas 28 other sites with silty soils did not show any strong effect, and two sites from the USA presented a decrease in BD (greater than 0.1 Mg/m3) (available in supplementary material). In earlier studies by Castellini et al. (Reference Castellini, Fornaro, Garofalo, Giglio, Rinaldi, Ventrella, Vitti and Vonella2019) and Çelik et al. (Reference Çelik, Günal, Acar, Acir, Barut and Budak2019), the compared plots had larger differences in one location but, on average, showed only slight differences or non-significant trends. Another study concluded that the stability of organic matter and the structure of soil aggregates, and consequently soil BD, improved with 15 years of NT; however, that study was focused on only the top 10 cm of soil where the organic matter had accumulated (Sapkota et al., Reference Sapkota, Mazzoncini, Bàrberi, Antichi and Silvestri2012). In addition, in the temperate region of Brazil, NT systems cause less soil compaction and pressure from agricultural machinery compared to CT, with NT being the least damaging to soil physical quality (Silva et al., Reference Silva, Dos Santos, Lollato, Santi and Fontaneli2023).

The depth of sampling in tilled soils is a factor that affects whether differences in BD can be identified. Under NT, four studies reported a lower BD in the topsoil (0–10 cm) but, at the same time, a higher BD was observed in the layers below (10–30 cm) (Mazzoncini et al., Reference Mazzoncini, Sapkota, Barberi, Antichi and Risaliti2011; Sapkota et al., Reference Sapkota, Mazzoncini, Bàrberi, Antichi and Silvestri2012; Autret et al., Reference Autret, Mary, Chenu, Balabane, Girardin, Bertrand, Grandeau and Beaudoin2016; Awale et al., Reference Awale, Machado and Rhinhart2018), although, for the latter two, the differences were not statistically significant. The opposite trends were presented in a study by Dolan et al. (Reference Dolan, Clapp, Allmaras, Baker and Molina2006), where BD was greater in the topsoil (5–20 cm) under NT, but under the ploughing layer, the soil under CT was more compact due to tillage.

However, farmers are advised to pay attention to whether additional measures to mitigate soil compaction (e.g. deep-rooted intermediate crops) are necessary when implementing NT in fields on the basis of their local conditions. The current study suggests that silty soils in temperate climates are at greater risk for soil compaction under NT.

The impact of tillage on soil microbiome, aggregate stability and carbon sequestration

According to the results of the current study, compared with CT, NT in loamy soils significantly increased C storage in the topsoil (0–30 cm), regardless of the duration of the experiment. On a broader scale, it is important to consider not only organic carbon but also soil inorganic carbon, primarily in the form of carbonates. During analysis, it is essential to separate these two carbon fractions, as various methods for carbon determination are available (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Wang and Zhang2012). However, there are still many discrepancies in the reported distribution patterns of SOC and disagreements regarding relevant mechanisms (Liang and Zhu, Reference Liang and Zhu2021). In addition to the redistribution of C in the different soil layers due to a lack of mixing under NT, one prominent reason for the apparently greater loss of C under tillage (Karlen et al., Reference Karlen, Cambardella, Kovar and Colvin2013) is the aeration of the soil, the destruction of aggregates, and the subsequent exposure of SOC to oxygen and microbes, which then results in higher rates of activity and organic matter mineralization (Young and Ritz, Reference Young and Ritz2000). Through physical protection mechanisms, soil aggregates play an important role in C storage. Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Han and Zhang2020) reported that after agricultural land abandonment, macroaggregates rapidly formed, and the SOC sequestration capacity was calculated to be 64–83%. A similar observation was reported by Sekaran et al. (Reference Sekaran, Sagar and Kumar2021), who reported higher C sequestration rates in small macroaggregates (2−0.25 mm) than in larger ones. In plots with straw cover or straw removal and manure application, the highest amount of SOC and stable macroaggregates were found at the soil surface (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Liang, Wang and Zhou2015). A significant increase in macroaggregate and aggregate-associated SOC contents was evident under NT and subsoil tillage to a depth of 40 cm (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Cao, Zhang, Cui, Guo, Shen, Zhou, Han and Ning2022).

Soil aggregate stability is directly related to the presence of soil biota, especially glomalin-producing earthworms and fungi. The impact of tillage on earthworms is highly variable and site-dependent (Chan, Reference Chan2001), but scholars largely agree on the detrimental effects of tillage operations on fungal hyphae, as the ability of fungi to recover from rupture is limited (Kabir, Reference Kabir2005; Orrù et al., Reference Orrù, Canfora, Trinchera, Migliore, Pennelli, Marcucci, Farina and Pinzari2021; Korniłłowicz-Kowalska et al., Reference Korniłłowicz–Kowalska, Andruszczak, Bohacz, Kraska, Możejko and Kwiecińska–Poppe2022; Li et al., Reference Li, Zhang, Meng, Rudgers, Cui, Zhao, Chai, Yang, Sternberg and Sun2023). Schmidt et al. (Reference Schmidt, Mitchell and Scow2019) reported that NT changed the functional composition of the fungal community in the soil profile. However, the species phylogenetic diversity of the community remained conserved, regardless of the tillage practice employed.

To date, the mechanisms by which SOC content decreases under frequent physical disturbances have not been well elucidated. Consequently, agroecosystem models are not well equipped with algorithms that represent the feedback of tillage on soil mesofauna and microbial activity and the related effects on aggregate stability and SOC protection against microbial decomposition (Maharjan et al., Reference Maharjan, Prescher, Nendel, Ewert, Mboh, Gaiser and Seidel2018).

Distribution of SOC over the soil profile

Many researchers have examined differences in soil properties in the topsoil, but the lower soil layers have been largely overlooked (Gál et al., Reference Gál, Vyn, Michéli, Kladivko and McFee2007). This is one reason why most studies report a large increase in soil carbon in fields without tillage, as they often disregard the simultaneous decrease in soil carbon in the lower layers, which no longer receive organic matter inputs. This matter has been addressed in recent reviews (e.g. Haddaway et al., Reference Haddaway, Hedlund, Jackson, Kätterer, Lugato, Thomsen, Jørgensen and Isberg2017) but must be reconsidered when examining individual studies. Notably, numerous studies have confirmed that under NT, less organic matter reaches soil layers below 5 cm depth. Under NT, there is a continuous accumulation of SOC in the topmost layer, while the zones below this layer are depleted in SOC. Frequent mixing under CT results in equal SOC concentrations within the ploughing layer, which, in comparison with NT, results in lower SOC concentrations in the topmost layer and higher SOC concentrations in the zone below the ploughing depth (e.g. Gál et al., Reference Gál, Vyn, Michéli, Kladivko and McFee2007; Sun et al., Reference Sun, Hallett, Caul, Daniell and Hopkins2011; Martínez et al., Reference Martínez, Chervet, Weisskopf, Sturny, Etana, Stettler, Forkman and Keller2016; Alhameid et al., Reference Alhameid, Ibrahim, Kumar, Sexton and Schumacher2017). However, a few exceptions exist: for the different tillage treatments employed by Autret et al. (Reference Autret, Mary, Chenu, Balabane, Girardin, Bertrand, Grandeau and Beaudoin2016), the SOC content remained constant in the 10–30 cm layer over time.

In temperate latitudes, studies on conservation agriculture in Brazil have shown that soil sampling to a depth of 100 cm is crucial for accurately assessing differences between CT and NT systems. When considering the full soil profile to 100 cm, the potential for soil carbon accumulation increased by 59%, with rates varying in one year from 0.48 to 1.53 Mg C/ha, compared to accumulation rates of 0.04 to 0.88 Mg C/ha in the top 30 cm (Boddey et al., Reference Boddey, Jantalia, Conceição, Zanatta, Bayer, Mielniczuk, Dieckow, Dossantos, Denardin, Aita, Giacomini, Alves and Urquiaga2010).

Effect of postharvest residues

The effect of NT on soil properties is strongly affected by the amount of postharvest residues left on the soil surface. These residues provide shelter to soil fauna against climatic stress, and larger soil organisms find suitable habitats in the mulch layer, which leads to a greater abundance of soil organisms in NT systems than in ploughed systems (Kladivko, Reference Kladivko2001). A typical soil faunal gradient over depth develops in NT systems (Kinoshita et al., Reference Kinoshita, Schindelbeck and Van Es2017; Wulanningtyas et al., Reference Wulanningtyas, Gong, Li, Sakagami, Nishiwaki and Komatsuzaki2021). Fiorini et al. (Reference Fiorini, Boselli, Maris, Santelli, Perego, Acutis, Brenna and Tabaglio2020) reported an increase in the abundance of earthworms and microarthropods in all soil types under NT management. At three monitored locations (in Spain and Italy), researchers demonstrated that crop diversification, together with reduced soil disturbance and chemical inputs, helped to improve soil properties (SOCs) and sustain crop yields (and profits) (Vanino et al., Reference Vanino, Di Bene, Piccini, Fila, Pennelli, Zornoza, Sanchez–Navarro, Álvaro–Fuentes, Hüppi, Six and Farina2022). Straw return from maize and wheat strongly enhances the capacity of NT systems for SOC sequestration (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Ran, Wang, Ye, Niu, Schulin and Wang2022). In contrast, Villamil et al. (Reference Villamil, Little and Nafziger2015) reported that in an NT treatment, the SOC content decreased to the levels observed in CT treatments when postharvest residues were removed.

Advantages and disadvantages of no-tillage

In temperate climates, NT is an effective measure for improving the biological and physical properties of soil. However, most of the beneficial effects of NT often result from a broader management regime that includes the use of intermediate crops and appropriate nitrogen fertilization rates (Sapkota et al., Reference Sapkota, Mazzoncini, Bàrberi, Antichi and Silvestri2012). In fact, some of the observed effects of NT are amplified through high N supply, which results in increased biomass that contributes to SOC accumulation through root and aboveground residues (Mazzoncini et al., Reference Mazzoncini, Sapkota, Barberi, Antichi and Risaliti2011; Jug et al., Reference Jug, Brozović, Đurđević, Wilczewski, Vukadinović, Stipešević and Jug2021).

Many farmers in temperate climatic zones decide against the use of NT, as weed control is their primary concern, and in narrow crop rotations, natural weed control mechanisms are limited (Nichols et al., Reference Nichols, Verhulst, Cox and Govaerts2015). For the successful integration of NT on farms, appropriate crop rotation is key (Cui et al., Reference Cui, Zhang, Zhang, Liu, Zhang, Zheng, Luo and Zou2022). In tropical systems, the success of NT is closely related to the use of total herbicides, such as glyphosate. However, Okada et al. (Reference Okada, Costa and Bedmar2019) reported that glyphosate degradation in NT and CT was very similar, which indicates the existence of glyphosate-degrading microflora in both systems. Alternatively, occasional tillage in NT systems may reduce weed pressure, and it has no obvious negative consequences for the physical properties of soils. Furthermore, occasional ploughing in NT systems may prevent the spread of diseases whose vectors develop in residues (Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, Reference Blanco–Canqui and Ruis2018). In the end, the combined use of three methods may offer enhanced weed control: minimum tillage, appropriate crop rotation, and the formation of a mulch layer on the soil surface from postharvest residues (Nichols et al., Reference Nichols, Verhulst, Cox and Govaerts2015).

Evaluation of the capabilities of models to represent no-till soil management

For predicting yield under the effects of climate change in sites in the Czech Republic, both the HERMES2Go and MONICA models have been previously tested (Pohanková et al., Reference Pohanková, Hlavinka, Kersebaum, Rodríguez, Balek, Bednařík, Dubrovský, Gobin, Hoogenboom, Moriondo, Nendel, Olesen, Rötter, Ruiz–Ramos, Shelia, Stella, Hoffmann, Takáč, Eitzinger, Dibari, Ferrise, Bláhová and Trnka2022). In the current research, it was aimed to test whether both models are fit to reproduce the effects of NT versus conventional tillage on SOC dynamics. Since the experimental results confirmed a significant effect of NT on SOC only in loamy soils, the model evaluation was made exclusively to data from sites with loamy soil. The evaluation revealed that the models were not sensitive enough in their present versions to sufficiently reflect the observed differences between CT and NT.

On the other hand, specific crop rotations with catch crops in NT are an important factor when the DayCent model demonstrated differences between CT and NT, showing that while NT systems without cover crops would continue to deplete SOC, more complex cropping diversification systems with cover crops promoted significant SOC sequestration (Locatelli et al., Reference Locatelli, Del Grosso, Santos, Hong, Gurung, Stewart, Cherubin, Bayer and Cerri2025). While the HERMES2Go model predicted a general depletion of SOC under NT compared with CT, which contradicts the experimental evidence, the MONICA model predicted an increase in accordance with the experimental results, but the increase was lower by a factor of 10. Both models revealed a distinct stratification of SOC in the top three 10 cm layers, with an accumulation in the top 10 cm and a depletion in the 10–30 cm zone for no-till, which is in line with most results reported in the literature (Luo et al., Reference Luo, Wang and Sun2010). Both models lack a representation of a mulch layer on the soil surface, which is why feedback from soil moisture and temperature in the presence of such a mulch cannot be simulated in the models, which includes the effects of soil moisture and temperature on soil microbial population dynamics (Zapata et al., Reference Zapata, Rajan, Mowrer, Casey, Schnell and Hons2021), as represented in the MONICA model. Maharjan et al. (Reference Maharjan, Prescher, Nendel, Ewert, Mboh, Gaiser and Seidel2018) concluded that ‘tillage affects the system in a way that a pure temperature and moisture-dependent decomposition approach is not sufficient to describe its impact. Apparently, there are more feedback relationships that determine the final effect of tillage on soil–crop systems, which need to be considered in such models’. This highlights the necessity of including more process knowledge in agroecosystem models, which requires rigorous testing against suitable datasets. The model ensemble framework offers a strong mechanism for propagating uncertainty across different scales, helping to identify weak points in agroecosystem models. However, implementing model ensembles in practice remains challenging due to the limited number of available models, and future research will need to address these challenges, including how to handle model disagreements, align outputs, adapt individual processes or interpret differences as uncertainty (Hassall et al., Reference Hassall, Coleman, Dixit, Granger, Zhang, Sharp, Wu, Whitmore, Richter, Collins and Milne2022). At this stage, the current study prioritizes the following improvements:

  1. 1) Mulch layer dynamics, e.g. as previously developed by Findeling et al. (Reference Findeling, Garnier, Coppens, Lafolie and Recous2007), Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Thapa, Timlin, Li, Sun, Beegum, Fleisher, Mirsky, Cabrera, Sauer, Reddy, Horton and Tully2021) or inspired by Thorburn et al. (Reference Thorburn, Probert and Robertson2001)

  2. 2) Effect of aeration dynamics on microbial activity, e.g. as previously described by Cook and Knight (Reference Cook and Knight2003) or inspired by Lei et al. (Reference Lei, Yu, Zang, Pan, Liu, Zhang and Du2022)

  3. 3) Effects of SOC concentration in the mineral matrix on soil hydraulic properties, e.g. as previously reported by Stătescu et al. (Reference Stătescu, Cotiușcă–Zaucă, Biali, Cojocaru and Pavel2017) or inspired by Rawls et al. (Reference Rawls, Nemes and Pachepsky2004)

  4. 4) Soil aggregate formation, e.g. as previously described by Laub et al. (Reference Laub, Blagodatsky, Van de Broek, Schlichenmaier, Kunlanit, Six, Vityakon and Cadisch2024) or inspired by Reference Wang, Brewer, Shugart, Lerdau and AllisonWang et al. (2019).

Conclusion

After a comparison of 76 experimental sites under NT and CT across the temperate zone, it was found that NT induced a slight increase in BD in the top 30 cm of soil, which was statistically significant for silty soils. No-till had a statistically significant effect on increased SOC concentrations and stocks only in loamy soils, and the effect was more prominent in studies older than 10 years.

In the context of an agroecosystem model study for the Czech Republic, it was found that the employed models HERMES2Go and MONICA are currently unable to sufficiently capture changes in SOC content under NT practices. Mulch layer dynamics, the effects of periodic aeration on microbial activity, feedback from SOC content in the mineral matrix on soil hydraulic properties, and soil aggregate formation and destruction were identified as the improvements most needed to enhance the fits of the models. For this purpose, targeted experiments that aid in the further elucidation of the physical and biological processes triggered by tillage events are urgently needed for a range of different site conditions.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859625000292

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. JB and EP prepared materials, collected data and analysed them. KK and CN performed simulations using agroecosystem models. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JB, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding statement

Jakub Bohuslav was financially supported by the Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of AgriSciences at Mendel University in Brno as part of research project no. AF-IGA2023-IP069.

This research has been supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (grant AdAgriF-Advanced methods of greenhouse gases emission reduction and sequestration in agriculture and forest landscape for climate change mitigation (CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004635).

Competing interests

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

References

Aiteew, K, Rouhiainen, J, Nendel, C and Dechow, R (2024) Evaluation and optimisation of the soil carbon turnover routine in the MONICA model (version 3.3. 1). EGUsphere 17, 13491385.Google Scholar
Alam, MD, Islam, M, Salahin, N and Hasanuzzaman, M (2014) Effect of tillage practices on soil properties and crop productivity in wheat–mungbean–rice cropping system under subtropical climatic conditions. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 437283.Google Scholar
Alhameid, A, Ibrahim, M, Kumar, S, Sexton, P and Schumacher, TE (2017) Soil organic carbon changes impacted by crop rotational diversity under no-till farming in South Dakota, USA. Soil Science Society of America Journal 81, 868877.Google Scholar
Al–Kaisi, MM, Yin, X and Licht, MA (2005) Soil carbon and nitrogen changes as affected by tillage system and crop biomass in a corn–soybean rotation. Applied Soil Ecology 30, 174191.Google Scholar
Álvaro–Fuentes, J, López, MV, Cantero–Martínez, C and Arrúe, JL (2008) Tillage effects on soil organic carbon fractions in Mediterranean dryland agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72, 541547.Google Scholar
Asseng, S, Ewert, F, Rosenzweig, C, Jones, JW, Hatfield, JL, Ruane, AC, Boote, KJ, Thorburn, PJ, Rötter, RP, Cammarano, D, Brisson, N, Basso, B, Martre, P, Aggarwal, PK, Angulo, C, Bertuzzi, P, Biernath, C, Challinor, AJ, Doltra, J, Gayler, S, Goldberg, R, Grant, R, Heng, L, Hooker, J, Hunt, LA, Ingwersen, J, Izaurralde, RC, Kersebaum, KC, Müller, C, Naresh Kumar, S, Nendel, C, O’Leary, G, Olesen, JE, Osborne, TM, Palosuo, T, Priesack, E, Ripoche, D, Semenov, MA, Shcherbak, I, Steduto, P, Stöckle, C, Stratonovitch, P, Streck, T, Supit, I, Tao, F, Travasso, M, Waha, K, Wallach, D, White, JW, Williams, JR and Wolf, J (2013) Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nature Climate Change 3, 827832.Google Scholar
Autret, B, Mary, B, Chenu, C, Balabane, M, Girardin, C, Bertrand, M, Grandeau, G and Beaudoin, N (2016) Alternative arable cropping systems: a key to increase soil organic carbon storage? Results from a 16 year field experiment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 232, 150164.Google Scholar
Awale, R, Machado, S and Rhinhart, K (2018) Soil carbon, nitrogen, pH, and crop yields in winter wheat–spring pea systems. Agronomy Journal 110, 15231531.Google Scholar
Bassu, S, Brisson, N, Durand, JL, Boote, K, Lizaso, J, Jones, JW, Rosenzweig, C, Ruane, AC, Adam, M, Baron, C, Basso, B, Biernath, C, Boogaard, H, Conijn, S, Corbeels, M, Deryng, D, De Sanctis, G, Gayler, S, Grassini, P, Hatfield, J, Hoek, S, Izaurralde, C, Jongschaap, R, Kemanian, AR, Kersebaum, KC, Kim, S-H, Kumar, NS, Makowski, D, Müller, C, Nendel, C, Priesack, E, Pravia, MV, Sau, F, Shcherbak, I, Tao, F, Teixeira, E, Timlin, D and Waha, K (2014) How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors?. Global Change Biology 20, 23012320.Google Scholar
Batey, T (2009) Soil compaction and soil management–a review. Soil Use and Management 25, 335345.Google Scholar
Battisti, R, Sentelhas, PC and Boote, KJ (2017) Inter–comparison of performance of soybean crop simulation models and their ensemble in southern Brazil. Field Crops Research 200, 2837.Google Scholar
Blanco–Canqui, H and Lal, R (2008) No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: an on-farm assessment. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72, 693701.Google Scholar
Blanco–Canqui, H and Ruis, SJ (2018) No–tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 326, 164200.Google Scholar
Blanco–Canqui, H, Hassim, R, Shapiro, C, Jasa, P and Klopp, H (2022) How does no–till affect soil–profile compactibility in the long term?. Geoderma 425, 116016.Google Scholar
Boddey, RM, Jantalia, CP, Conceição, PC, Zanatta, JA, Bayer, C, Mielniczuk, J, Dieckow, J, Dossantos, HP, Denardin, JE, Aita, C, Giacomini, SJ, Alves, BJR and Urquiaga, S (2010) Carbon accumulation at depth in Ferralsols under zero–till subtropical agriculture. Global Change Biology 16, 784795.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M, Hedges, LV, Higgins, JPT and Rothstein, HR (2009) Introduction to Meta Analysis. Chichester, UK: A John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Google Scholar
Castellini, M, Fornaro, F, Garofalo, P, Giglio, L, Rinaldi, M, Ventrella, D, Vitti, C and Vonella, AV (2019) Effects of no–tillage and conventional tillage on physical and hydraulic properties of fine textured soils under winter wheat. Water 11, 484.Google Scholar
Çelik, İ, Günal, H, Acar, M, Acir, N, Barut, ZB and Budak, M (2019) Strategic tillage may sustain the benefits of long–term no–till in a Vertisol under Mediterranean climate. Soil and Tillage Research 185, 1728.Google Scholar
Chan, KY (2001) An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity — implications for functioning in soils. Soil and Tillage Research 57, 179191.Google Scholar
Chen, H, Bai, Y, Wang, Q, Chen, F, Li, H, Tullberg, JN, Murray, JR, Gao, H and Gong, Y (2008) Traffic and tillage effects on wheat production on the Loess Plateau of China: 1 Crop yield and SOM. Soil Research 46, 645651.Google Scholar
Chen, S, Cao, Y, Zhang, T, Cui, J, Guo, L, Shen, Y, Zhou, P, Han, H and Ning, T (2022) Improvement of soil aggregate–associated carbon sequestration capacity after 14 years of conservation tillage. Experimental Agriculture 58, e55.Google Scholar
Christopher, SF, Lal, R and Mishra, U (2009) Regional study of no-till effects on carbon sequestration in the Midwestern United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73, 207216.Google Scholar
Cook, FJ and Knight, JH (2003) Oxygen transport to plant roots: modeling for physical understanding of soil aeration. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67, 2031.Google Scholar
Cordeau, S, Smith, RG, Gallandt, ER, Brown, B, Salon, P, DiTommaso, A and Ryan, MR (2017) Timing of tillage as a driver of weed communities. Weed science 65, 504514.Google Scholar
Couëdel, A, Falconnier, GN, Adam, M, Cardinael, R, Boote, K, Justes, E, Smith, WN, Whitbread, AM, Affholder, F, Balkovic, J, Basso, B, Bhatia, A, Chakrabarti, B, Chikowo, R, Christina, M, Faye, B, Ferchaud, F, Folberth, C, Akinseye, FM, Gaiser, T, Galdos, MV, Gayler, S, Gorooei, A, Grant, B, Guibert, H, Hoogenboom, G, Kamali, B, Laub, M, Maureira, F, Mequanint, F, Nendel, C, Porter, CH, Ripoche, D, Ruane, AC, Rusinamhodzi, L, Sharma, S, Singh, U, Six, J, Srivastava, A, Vanlauwe, B, Versini, A, Vianna, M, Webber, H, Weber, TKD, Zhang, C and Corbeels, M (2024) Long–term soil organic carbon and crop yield feedbacks differ between 16 soil–crop models in sub–Saharan Africa. European Journal of Agronomy 155, 127109.Google Scholar
Cui, Y, Zhang, W, Zhang, Y, Liu, X, Zhang, Y, Zheng, X, Luo, J and Zou, J (2022) Effects of no–till on upland crop yield and soil organic carbon: a global meta–analysis. Plant and Soil 499, 363377.Google Scholar
Dai, X, Li, Y, Ouyang, Z, Wang, H and Wilson, GV (2013) Organic manure as an alternative to crop residues for no–tillage wheat–maize systems in North China Plain. Field Crops Research 149, 141148.Google Scholar
de Paul Obade, V and Lal, R (2014) Soil quality evaluation under different land management practices. Environmental Earth Sciences 72, 45314549.Google Scholar
Deen, W and Kataki, PK (2003) Carbon sequestration in a long–term conventional versus conservation tillage experiment. Soil and Tillage Research 74, 143150.Google Scholar
Dolan, MS, Clapp, CE, Allmaras, RR, Baker, JM and Molina, JAE (2006) Soil organic carbon and nitrogen in a Minnesota soil as related to tillage, residue and nitrogen management. Soil and Tillage Research 89, 221231.Google Scholar
Dueri, S, Brown, H, Asseng, S, Ewert, F, Webber, H, George, M, Craigie, R, Guarin, JR, Pequeno, DNL, Stella, T, Ahmed, M, Alderman, PD, Basso, B, Berger, AG, Bracho Mujica, G, Cammarano, D, Chen, Y, Dumont, B, Eyshi Rezaei, E, Fereres, E, Ferrise, R, Gaiser, T, Gao, Y, Garcia–Vila, M, Gayler, S, Hochman, Z, Hoogenboom, G, Kersebaum, KC, Nendel, C, Olesen, JE, Padovan, G, Palosuo, T, Priesack, E, Pullens, JWM, Rodríguez, A, Rötter, RP, Ruiz Ramos, M, Semenov, MA, Senapati, N, Siebert, S, Srivastava, AK, Stöckle, C, Supit, I, Tao, F, Thorburn, P, Wang, E, Weber, TKD, Xiao, L, Zhao, C, Zhao, J, Zhao, Z, Zhu, Y and Martre, P (2022) Simulation of winter wheat response to variable sowing dates and densities in a high–yielding environment. Journal of Experimental Botany 73, 57155729.Google Scholar
Durand, JL, Delusca, K, Boote, K, Lizaso, J, Manderscheid, R, Weigel, HJ, Ruane, AC, Rosenzweig, C, Jones, J, Ahuja, L, Anapalli, S, Basso, B, Baron, C, Bertuzzi, P, Biernath, C, Deryng, D, Ewert, F, Gaiser, T, Gayler, S, Heinlein, F, Kersebaum, KC, Kim, S-H, Müller, C, Nendel, C, Olioso, A, Priesack, E, Ramirez Villegas, J, Ripoche, D, Rötter, RP, Seidel, SI, Srivastava, A, Tao, F, Timlin, D, Twine, T, Wang, E, Webber, H and Zhao, Z (2018) How accurately do maize crop models simulate the interactions of atmospheric CO2 concentration levels with limited water supply on water use and yield?. European Journal of Agronomy 100, 6775.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020) Stepping up Europe’s 2030 Climate Ambition Investing in a Climate–Neutral Future for the Benefit of our People. Brussels: COM.Google Scholar
Fan, RQ, Yang, XM, Drury, CF, Reynolds, WD and Zhang, XP (2014) Spatial distributions of soil chemical and physical properties prior to planting soybean in soil under ridge-, no-and conventional-tillage in a maize–soybean rotation. Soil Use and Management 30, 414422.Google Scholar
Farina, R, Sándor, R, Abdalla, M, Álvaro–Fuentes, J, Bechini, L, Bolinder, MA, Brilli, L, Chenu, C, Clivot, H, De Antoni Migliorati, M, Di Bene, C, Dorich, CD, Ehrhardt, F, Ferchaud, F, Fitton, N, Francaviglia, R, Franko, U, Giltrap, DL, Grant, BB, Guenet, B, Harrison, MT, Kirschbaum, MUF, Kuka, K, Kulmala, L, Liski, J, McGrath, MJ, Meier, E, Menichetti, L, Moyano, F, Nendel, C, Recous, S, Reibold, N, Shepherd, A, Smith, WN, Smith, P, Soussana, J-F, Stella, T, Taghizadeh–Toosi, A, Tsutskikh, E and Bellocchi, G (2021) Ensemble modelling, uncertainty and robust predictions of organic carbon in long–term bare–fallow soils. Global Change Biology 27, 904928.Google Scholar
Findeling, A, Garnier, P, Coppens, F, Lafolie, F and Recous, S (2007) Modelling water, carbon and nitrogen dynamics in soil covered with decomposing mulch. European Journal of Soil Science 58, 196206.Google Scholar
Fiorini, A, Boselli, R, Maris, SC, Santelli, S, Perego, A, Acutis, M, Brenna, S and Tabaglio, V (2020) Soil type and cropping system as drivers of soil quality indicators response to no–till: a 7–year field study. Applied Soil Ecology 155, 103646.Google Scholar
Gál, A, Vyn, TJ, Michéli, E, Kladivko, EJ and McFee, WW (2007) Soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation with long–term no–till versus moldboard ploughing overestimated with tilled–zone sampling depths. Soil and Tillage Research 96, 4251.Google Scholar
Gómez-Muñoz, B, Jensen, LS, Munkholm, L, Olesen, JE, Møller Hansen, E and Bruun, S (2021) Long-term effect of tillage and straw retention in conservation agriculture systems on soil carbon storage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 85, 14651478.Google Scholar
Grosz, B, Dechow, R, Gebbert, S, Hoffmann, H, Zhao, G, Constantin, J, Raynal, H, Wallach, D, Coucheney, E, Lewan, E, Eckersten, H, Specka, X, Kersebaum, K-C, Nendel, C, Kuhnert, M, Yeluripati, J, Haas, E, Teixeira, E, Bindi, M, Trombi, G, Moriondo, M, Doro, L, Roggero, PP, Zhao, Z, Wang, E, Tao, F, Rötter, RP, Kassie, B, Cammarano, D, Asseng, S, Weihermüller, L, Siebert, S and Ewert, F (2017) The implication of input data aggregation on up–scaling soil organic carbon changes. Environmental Modelling and Software 96, 361377.Google Scholar
Habel, JC, Samways, MJ and Schmitt, T (2019) Mitigating the precipitous decline of terrestrial European insects: requirements for a new strategy. Biodiversity and Conservation 28, 13431360.Google Scholar
Haddaway, NR, Hedlund, K, Jackson, LE, Kätterer, T, Lugato, E, Thomsen, IK, Jørgensen, HB and Isberg, PE (2017) How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environmental Evidence 6, 148.Google Scholar
Hansen, S, Jensen, HE, Nielsen, NE and Svendsen, H (1991) Simulation of nitrogen dynamics in the soil-plant system using the Danish simulation model DAISY. Hydrological Interactions between Atmosphere, Soil Veg 204, 185196.Google Scholar
Hassall, KL, Coleman, K, Dixit, PN, Granger, SJ, Zhang, Y, Sharp, RT, Wu, L, Whitmore, AP, Richter, GM, Collins, AL and Milne, AE (2022) Exploring the effects of land management change on productivity, carbon and nutrient balance: application of an ensemble modelling approach to the upper River Taw observatory, UK. Science of the Total Environment 824, 153824.Google Scholar
Hermle, S, Anken, T, Leifeld, J and Weisskopf, P (2008) The effect of the tillage system on soil organic carbon content under moist, cold–temperate conditions. Soil and Tillage Research 98, 94105.Google Scholar
Hlavinka, P, Trnka, M, Kersebaum, KC, Takáč, J, Balek, J, Semerádová, D and Žalud, Z (2015) The use of Soilclim and Hermes model for irrigation water demand estimates. International Scientific Conference Towards Climatic Services. Nitra, Slovakia, 15–18 September.Google Scholar
Huang, M, Liang, T, Wang, L and Zhou, C (2015) Effects of no–tillage systems on soil physical properties and carbon sequestration under long–term wheat–maize double cropping system. Catena 128, 195202.Google Scholar
Hussain, S, Guo, R, Sarwar, M, Ren, X, Krstic, D, Aslam, Z, Zulifqar, U, Rauf, A, Hano, C and El–Esawi, MA (2021) Carbon sequestration to avoid soil degradation: a review on the role of conservation tillage. Plants 10, 2001.Google Scholar
Idowu, OJ, Sultana, S, Darapuneni, M, Beck, L and Steiner, R (2019) Short–term conservation tillage effects on corn silage yield and soil quality in an irrigated, arid agroecosystem. Agronomy 9, 455.Google Scholar
IUSS Working Group WRB (2022) World Reference Base for Soil Resources: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th Edn. Vienna, Austria: International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS).Google Scholar
Jensen, LS, Mueller, T, Bruun, S and Hansen, S (2001) Application of the daisy model for short and long–term simulation of soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics. In Modelling Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics for Soil Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, pp. 483509.Google Scholar
Jug, I, Brozović, B, Đurđević, B, Wilczewski, E, Vukadinović, V, Stipešević, B and Jug, D (2021) Response of crops to conservation tillage and nitrogen fertilization under different agroecological conditions. Agronomy 11, 2156.Google Scholar
Kabir, Z (2005) Tillage or no–tillage: impact on mycorrhizae. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 85, 2329.Google Scholar
Kaiser, K and Zech, W (2000) Dissolved organic matter sorption by mineral constituents of subsoil clay fractions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 163, 531535.Google Scholar
Karlen, DL, Cambardella, CA, Kovar, JL and Colvin, TS (2013) Soil quality response to long–term tillage and crop rotation practices. Soil and Tillage Research 133, 5464.Google Scholar
Kersebaum, KC (1995) Application of a simple management model to simulate water and nitrogen dynamics. Ecological Modelling 81, 145156.Google Scholar
Kersebaum, KC (2007) Modelling nitrogen dynamics in soil–crop systems with HERMES. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 77, 3952.Google Scholar
Kersebaum, KC (2011) Special features of the HERMES model and additional procedures for parameterization, calibration, validation, and applications. Methods of Introducing System Models into Agricultural Research 2, 6594.Google Scholar
Kersebaum, KC and Beblik, AJ (2001) Performance of a nitrogen dynamics model applied to evaluate agricultural management practices. In Shaffer, M, Ma, L and Hansen, S (eds.), Modeling Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics for Soil Management. Boca Raton, USA: Lewis Publishers, pp. 549569.Google Scholar
Khaledi, V, Kamali, B, Lischeid, G, Dietrich, O, Davies, MF and Nendel, C (2024) Challenges of including wet grasslands with variable groundwater tables in large–area crop production simulations. Agriculture 14, 679.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, R, Schindelbeck, RR and Van Es, HM (2017) Quantitative soil profile–scale assessment of the sustainability of long–term maize residue and tillage management. Soil and Tillage Research 174, 3444.Google Scholar
Kladivko, EJ (2001) Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil and Tillage Research 61, 6176.Google Scholar
Kollas, C, Kersebaum, KC, Nendel, C, Manevski, K, Müller, C, Palosuo, T, Armas–Herrera, CM, Beaudoin, N, Bindi, M, Charfeddine, M, Conradt, T, Constantin, J, Eitzinger, J, Ewert, F, Ferrise, R, Gaiser, T, García de Cortázar–Atauri, I, Giglio, L, Hlavinka, P, Hoffmann, H, Hoffmann, MP, Launay, M, Manderscheid, R, Mary, B, Mirschel, W, Moriondo, M, Olesen, JE, Öztürk, I, Pacholski, A, Ripoche–Wachter, D, Roggero, PP, Roncossek, S, Rötter, RP, Ruget, F, Sharif, B, Trnka, M, Ventrella, D, Waha, K, Wegehenkel, M, Weigel, H-J and Wu, L (2015) Crop rotation modelling - a European model intercomparison. European Journal of Agronomy 70, 98111.Google Scholar
Komissarov, MA and Klik, A (2020) The impact of no–till, conservation, and conventional tillage systems on erosion and soil properties in Lower Austria. Eurasian soil science 53, 503511.Google Scholar
Korniłłowicz–Kowalska, T, Andruszczak, S, Bohacz, J, Kraska, P, Możejko, M and Kwiecińska–Poppe, E (2022) The effect of tillage and no–tillage system on culturable fungal communities in the rhizosphere and soil of two spelt cultivars. Applied Soil Ecology 174, 104413.Google Scholar
Lal, R (2019) Accelerated soil erosion as a source of atmospheric CO2. Soil and Tillage Research 188, 3540.Google Scholar
Laub, M, Blagodatsky, S, Van de Broek, M, Schlichenmaier, S, Kunlanit, B, Six, J, Vityakon, P and Cadisch, G (2024) SAMM version 10: a numerical model for microbial–mediated soil aggregate formation. Geoscientific Model Development 17, 931956.Google Scholar
Lei, H, Yu, J, Zang, M, Pan, H, Liu, X, Zhang, Z and Du, J (2022) Effects of water–fertilizer–air–coupling drip irrigation on soil health status: soil aeration, enzyme activities, and microbial biomass. Agronomy 12, 2674.Google Scholar
Li, J, Zhang, T, Meng, B, Rudgers, JA, Cui, N, Zhao, T, Chai, H, Yang, X, Sternberg, M and Sun, W (2023) Disruption of fungal hyphae suppressed litter–derived C retention in soil and N translocation to plants under drought–stressed temperate grassland. Geoderma 432, 116396.Google Scholar
Li, M, He, P, Guo, XL, Zhang, X and Li, LJ (2021) Fifteen–year no tillage of a Mollisol with residue retention indirectly affects topsoil bacterial community by altering soil properties. Soil and Tillage Research 205, 104804.Google Scholar
Liang, C and Zhu, X (2021) The soil microbial carbon pump as a new concept for terrestrial carbon sequestration. Science China Earth Sciences 64, 545558.Google Scholar
Liebhard, G, Klik, A, Neugschwandtner, RW and Nolz, R (2022) Effects of tillage systems on soil water distribution, crop development, and evaporation and transpiration rates of soybean. Agricultural Water Management 269, 107719.Google Scholar
Liu, M, Han, G and Zhang, Q (2020) Effects of agricultural abandonment on soil aggregation, soil organic carbon storage and stabilization: results from observation in a small karst catchment, Southwest China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 288, 106719.Google Scholar
Locatelli, JL, Del Grosso, S, Santos, RS, Hong, M, Gurung, R, Stewart, CE, Cherubin, MR, Bayer, C and Cerri, CEP (2025) Modeling soil organic matter changes under crop diversification strategies and climate change scenarios in the Brazilian Cerrado. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 379, 109334.Google Scholar
López–Fando, C, Dorado, J and Pardo, MT (2007) Effects of zone–tillage in rotation with no–tillage on soil properties and crop yields in a semi–arid soil from central Spain. Soil and Tillage Research 95, 266276.Google Scholar
Luo, Z, Wang, E and Sun, OJ (2010) Can no–tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta–analysis of paired experiments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139, 224231.Google Scholar
Maharjan, GR, Prescher, AK, Nendel, C, Ewert, F, Mboh, CM, Gaiser, T and Seidel, SJ (2018) Approaches to model the impact of tillage implements on soil physical and nutrient properties in different agro–ecosystem models. Soil and Tillage Research 180, 210221.Google Scholar
Martínez, I, Chervet, A, Weisskopf, P, Sturny, WG, Etana, A, Stettler, M, Forkman, J and Keller, T (2016) Two decades of no–till in the Oberacker long–term field experiment: part I crop yield, soil organic carbon and nutrient distribution in the soil profile. Soil and Tillage Research 163, 141151.Google Scholar
Mazzoncini, M, Sapkota, TB, Barberi, P, Antichi, D and Risaliti, R (2011) Long–term effect of tillage, nitrogen fertilization and cover crops on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen content. Soil and Tillage Research 114, 165174.Google Scholar
Mbuthia, LW, Acosta–Martínez, V, DeBruyn, J, Schaeffer, S, Tyler, D, Odoi, E, Mpheshea, M, Walker, F and Eash, N (2015) Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: implications for soil quality. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 89, 2434.Google Scholar
Microsoft Corporation (2024) Excel (Microsoft 365 Subscription). Redmond, Washington: Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar
Mondal, S, Chakraborty, D, Bandyopadhyay, K, Aggarwal, P and Rana, DS (2020) A global analysis of the impact of zero-tillage on soil physical condition, organic carbon content, and plant root response. Land Degradation and Development 31, 557567.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, A and Lal, R (2015) Tillage effects on quality of organic and mineral soils under on–farm conditions in Ohio. Environmental Earth Sciences 74, 18151822.Google Scholar
Nendel, C, Berg, M, Kersebaum, KC, Mirschel, W, Specka, X, Wegehenkel, M, Wenkel, KO and Wieland, R (2011) The MONICA model: testing predictability for crop growth, soil moisture and nitrogen dynamics. Ecological Modelling 222, 16141625.Google Scholar
Nendel, C, Kersebaum, KC, Mirschel, W and Wenkel, KO (2014) Testing farm management options as climate change adaptation strategies using the MONICA model. European Journal of Agronomy 52, 4756.Google Scholar
Nendel, C, Reckling, M, Debaeke, P, Schulz, S, Berg–Mohnicke, M, Constantin, J, Fronzek, S, Hoffmann, M, Jakšić, S, Kersebaum, KC, Klimek–Kopyra, A, Raynal, H, Schoving, C, Stella, T and Battisti, R (2023) Future area expansion outweighs increasing drought risk for soybean in Europe. Global Change Biology 29, 13401358.Google Scholar
Nichols, V, Verhulst, N, Cox, R and Govaerts, B (2015) Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: a review. Field Crops Research 183, 5668.Google Scholar
Noman, A, Aqeel, M, Qasim, M, Haider, I and Lou, Y (2020) Plant–insect–microbe interaction: a love triangle between enemies in ecosystem. Science of the Total Environment 699, 134181.Google Scholar
Ogle, SM, Breidt, FJ and Paustian, K (2005) Agricultural management impacts on soil organic carbon storage under moist and dry climatic conditions of temperate and tropical regions. Biogeochemistry 72, 87121.Google Scholar
Okada, E, Costa, JL and Bedmar, F (2016) Adsorption and mobility of glyphosate in different soils under no–till and conventional tillage. Geoderma 263, 7885.Google Scholar
Okada, E, Costa, JL and Bedmar, F (2019) Glyphosate dissipation in different soils under no–till and conventional tillage. Pedosphere 29, 773783.Google Scholar
Olhoff, A and Christensen, JM (2020) Emissions Gap Report 2020. Copenhagen, Denmark: UNEP DTU Partnership.Google Scholar
Omonode, RA, Gal, A, Stott, DE, Abney, TS and Vyn, TJ (2006) Short-term versus continuous chisel and no-till effects on soil carbon and nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70, 419425.Google Scholar
Orrù, L, Canfora, L, Trinchera, A, Migliore, M, Pennelli, B, Marcucci, A, Farina, R and Pinzari, F (2021) How tillage and crop rotation change the distribution pattern of fungi. Frontiers in Microbiology 12, 63432.Google Scholar
Pohanková, E, Hlavinka, P, Kersebaum, KC, Rodríguez, A, Balek, J, Bednařík, M, Dubrovský, M, Gobin, A, Hoogenboom, G, Moriondo, M, Nendel, C, Olesen, JE, Rötter, RP, Ruiz–Ramos, M, Shelia, V, Stella, T, Hoffmann, MP, Takáč, J, Eitzinger, J, Dibari, C, Ferrise, R, Bláhová, M and Trnka, M (2022) Expected effects of climate change on the production and water use of crop rotation management reproduced by crop model ensemble for Czech Republic sites. European Journal of Agronomy 134, 126446.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rawls, WJ, Nemes, ATTILA and Pachepsky, YA (2004) Effect of soil organic carbon on soil hydraulic properties. Developments in Soil Science 30, 95114.Google Scholar
Rötter, RP, Palosuo, T, Kersebaum, KC, Angulo, C, Bindi, M, Ewert, F, Ferrise, R, Hlavinka, P, Moriondo, M, Nendel, C, Olesen, JE, Patil, RH, Ruget, F, Takáč, J and Trnka, M (2012) Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research 133, 2336.Google Scholar
RStudio Team (2020) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC.Google Scholar
Sainju, UM, Allen, BA, Caesar-TonThat, T and Lenssen, AW (2015) Dryland soil carbon and nitrogen after thirty years of tillage and cropping sequence combination. Agronomy Journal 107, 18221830.Google Scholar
Salo, TJ, Palosuo, T, Kersebaum, KC, Nendel, C, Angulo, C, Ewert, F, Bindi, M, Calanca, P, Klein, T, Moriondo, M, Ferrise, R, Olesen, JE, Patil, RH, Ruget, F, Takáč, J, Hlavinka, P, Trnka, M and Rötter, RP (2016) Comparing the performance of 11 crop simulation models in predicting yield response to nitrogen fertilization. The Journal of Agricultural Science 154, 12181240.Google Scholar
Sapkota, TB, Mazzoncini, M, Bàrberi, P, Antichi, D and Silvestri, N (2012) Fifteen years of no till increase soil organic matter, microbial biomass and arthropod diversity in cover crop–based arable cropping systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 853863.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R, Mitchell, J and Scow, K (2019) Cover cropping and no–till increase diversity and symbiotroph: saprotroph ratios of soil fungal communities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 129, 99109.Google Scholar
Sekaran, U, Sagar, KL and Kumar, S (2021) Soil aggregates, aggregate–associated carbon and nitrogen, and water retention as influenced by short and long–term no–till systems. Soil and Tillage Research 208, 104885.Google Scholar
Serri, DL, Pérez–Brandan, C, Meriles, JM, Salvagiotti, F, Bacigaluppo, S, Malmantile, A and Vargas–Gil, S (2022) Development of a soil quality index for sequences with different levels of land occupation using soil chemical, physical and microbiological properties. Applied Soil Ecology 180, 104621.Google Scholar
Silva, SR, Dos Santos, HP, Lollato, RP, Santi, A and Fontaneli, RS (2023) Soybean yield and soil physical properties as affected by long–term tillage systems and liming in southern Brazil. International Journal of Plant Production 17, 6579.Google Scholar
Soane, BD, Ball, BC, Arvidsson, J, Basch, G, Moreno, F and Roger–Estrade, J (2012) No–till in northern, western and south–western Europe: a review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil and Tillage Research 118, 6687.Google Scholar
Sombrero, A and De Benito, A (2010) Carbon accumulation in soil ten–year study of conservation tillage and crop rotation in a semi–arid area of Castile–Leon, Spain. Soil and Tillage Research 107, 6470.Google Scholar
Specka, X, Nendel, C, Hagemann, U, Pohl, M, Hoffmann, M, Barkusky, D, Augustin, J, Sommer, M and Van Oost, K (2016) Reproducing CO2 exchange rates of a crop rotation at contrasting terrain positions using two different modelling approaches. Soil and Tillage Research 156, 219229.Google Scholar
Stătescu, F, Cotiușcă–Zaucă, D, Biali, G, Cojocaru, P and Pavel, VL (2017) Influence of soil matrix on soil–water retention curve and hydraulic characteristics. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal (EEMJ) 16, 869877.Google Scholar
Strohmeier, S, Laaha, G, Holzmann, H and Klik, A (2016) Magnitude and occurrence probability of soil loss: a risk analytical approach for the plot scale for two sites in lower Austria. Land Degradation and Development 27, 4351.Google Scholar
Student (1908) The probable error of a mean. Biometrika 6, 125.Google Scholar
Sun, B, Hallett, PD, Caul, S, Daniell, TJ and Hopkins, DW (2011) Distribution of soil carbon and microbial biomass in arable soils under different tillage regimes. Plant and Soil 338, 1725.Google Scholar
Tadiello, T, Perego, A, Valkama, E, Schillaci, C and Acutis, M (2022) Computation of total soil organic carbon stock and its standard deviation from layered soils. MethodsX 9, 101662.Google Scholar
Thaler, S, Pohankova, E, Eitzinger, J, Hlavinka, P, Orság, M, Lukas, V, Brtnický, M, Růžek, P, Šimečková, J, Ghisi, T, Bohuslav, J, Klem, K and Trnka, M (2023) Determining factors affecting the soil water content and yield of selected crops in a field experiment with a rainout shelter and a control plot in the Czech Republic. Agriculture 13, 1315.Google Scholar
Thorburn, PJ, Probert, ME and Robertson, FA (2001) Modelling decomposition of sugar cane surface residues with APSIM–Residue. Field Crops Research 70, 223232.Google Scholar
Trabucco, A and Zomer, R (2022) Global Aridity Index and Potential Evapotranspiration (ET0) Climate Database v3. figshare. Available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v4 (Accessed 14 March 2022).Google Scholar
Van Donk, SJ, Martin, DL, Irmak, S, Melvin, SR, Petersen, JL and Davison, DR (2010) Crop residue cover effects on evaporation, soil water content, and yield of deficit–irrigated corn in west–central Nebraska. Transactions of the ASABE 53, 17871797.Google Scholar
Vanino, S, Di Bene, C, Piccini, C, Fila, G, Pennelli, B, Zornoza, R, Sanchez–Navarro, V, Álvaro–Fuentes, J, Hüppi, R, Six, J and Farina, R (2022) A comprehensive assessment of diversified cropping systems on agro–environmental sustainability in three Mediterranean long–term field experiments. European Journal of Agronomy 140, 126598.Google Scholar
Varvel, GE and Wilhelm, WW (2010) Long-term soil organic carbon as affected by tillage and cropping systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74, 915921.Google Scholar
Vazquez, E, Benito, M, Espejo, R and Teutscherova, N (2019) Effects of no–tillage and liming amendment combination on soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization. European Journal of Soil Biology 93, 103090.Google Scholar
Villamil, MB, Little, J and Nafziger, ED (2015) Corn residue, tillage, and nitrogen rate effects on soil properties. Soil and Tillage Research 151, 6166.Google Scholar
Wang, B, Brewer, PE, Shugart, HH, Lerdau, MT and Allison, SD (2019) Soil aggregates as biogeochemical reactors and implications for soil–atmosphere exchange of greenhouse gases—a concept. Global Change Biology 25, 373385.Google Scholar
Wang, E, He, D, Wang, J, Lilley, JM, Christy, B, Hoffmann, MP, O’Leary, G, Hatfield, JL, Ledda, L, Deligios, PA, Grant, B, Jing, Q, Nendel, C, Kage, H, Qian, B, Eyshi Rezaei, E, Smith, W, Weymann, W and Ewert, F (2022) How reliable are current crop models for simulating growth and seed yield of canola across global sites and under future climate change?. Climatic Change 172, 20.Google Scholar
Wang, X, Wang, J and Zhang, J (2012) Comparisons of three methods for organic and inorganic carbon in calcareous soils of northwestern China. PLoS ONE 7, 44334.Google Scholar
Wang, Z, Thapa, R, Timlin, D, Li, S, Sun, W, Beegum, S, Fleisher, D, Mirsky, S, Cabrera, M, Sauer, T, Reddy, VR, Horton, R and Tully, K (2021) Simulations of water and thermal dynamics for soil surfaces with residue mulch and surface runoff. Water Resources Research 57, 030431.Google Scholar
Wulanningtyas, HS, Gong, Y, Li, P, Sakagami, N, Nishiwaki, J and Komatsuzaki, M (2021) A cover crop and no–tillage system for enhancing soil health by increasing soil organic matter in soybean cultivation. Soil and Tillage Research 205, 104749.Google Scholar
Yang, XM, Drury, CF, Wander, MM and Kay, BD (2008) Evaluating the effect of tillage on carbon sequestration using the minimum detectable difference concept. Pedosphere 18, 421430.Google Scholar
Yin, X, Kersebaum, KC, Kollas, C, Manevski, K, Baby, S, Beaudoin, N, Öztürk, I, Gaiser, T, Wu, L, Hoffmann, M, Charfeddine, M, Conradt, T, Constantin, J, Ewert, F, García de Cortázar–Atauri, I, Giglio, L, Hlavinka, P, Hoffmann, H, Launay, M, Louarn, G, Manderscheid, R, Mary, B, Mirschel, W, Nendel, C, Pacholski, A, Palosuo, T, Ripoche–Wachter, D, Rötter, RP, Ruget, F, Sharif, B, Trnka, M, Ventrella, D, Weigel, H-J and Olesen, JE (2017) Performance of process–based models for simulation of grain N in crop rotations across Europe. Agricultural Systems 154, 6377.Google Scholar
Young, IM and Ritz, K (2000) Tillage, habitat space and function of soil microbes. Soil and Tillage Research 53, 201213.Google Scholar
Zapata, D, Rajan, N, Mowrer, J, Casey, K, Schnell, R and Hons, F (2021) Long–term tillage effect on with–in season variations in soil conditions and respiration from dryland winter wheat and soybean cropping systems. Scientific Reports 11, 2344.Google Scholar
Zhu, K, Ran, H, Wang, F, Ye, X, Niu, L, Schulin, R and Wang, G (2022) Conservation tillage facilitated soil carbon sequestration through diversified carbon conversions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 337, 108080.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Overview of the duration of the studies analysed. The colours refer to soil textures according to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Loamy textural classes and the amount of clay, silt, and sand fractions were used as soil texture characteristics in the models.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Map of the global aridity index, where points denote the sites analysed in the current study and classified by soil texture (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2022).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Effects of NT management on soil BD and SOC. The upper plots contain data from all the studies (experiments), and the lower plots contain data from experiments lasting longer than 10 years. The t-test result is represented by a P value when the significant correlation value S * is less than 0.05 and S ** is less than 0.01. The colours of point and linear regression lines (dashed) refer to the WRB soil qualifiers. Note that the soil texture classes arenic and clayey contain a very small number of samples.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Results at the end of the 60-year simulation of SOC dynamics via HERMES2Go on the loamy soil subset of the experimental data for CT and NT management. The blue points represent the experimental data as references, with a linear regression and confidence interval applied. The black points represent the results of the simulations in HERMES2Go, which are close to the identity line (grey colour).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Results at the end of the 60-year simulation of SOC dynamics via MONICA on the loamy soil subset of the experimental data for CT and NT management. The blue points represent the experimental data as references, with a linear regression and confidence interval applied. The black points represent the results of the simulations in MONICA, which are close to the identity line (grey colour).

Figure 6

Figure 7. Results of a 60-year simulation of SOC content using the HERMES2Go model for CT and NT on different soils. The soil characteristics and initial SOC values for a 10-year spin-up period (1951–1960) were selected according to the soils identified in the experiments presented in the review section of the current study.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Results of a 60-year simulation of SOC content using the MONICA model for CT and NT on different soils. The soil characteristics and initial SOC values for a 10-year spin-up period (1951–1960) were selected according to the soils identified in the experiments presented in the review section of the current study.

Supplementary material: File

Bohuslav et al. supplementary material

Bohuslav et al. supplementary material
Download Bohuslav et al. supplementary material(File)
File 282.3 KB