Next Article in Journal
The Dietary Risk Factors of Gastric Ulcers in Finishing Pigs from 16 Polish Farms
Next Article in Special Issue
Continuous Practice of Conservation Agriculture for 3–5 Years in Intensive Rice-Based Cropping Patterns Reduces Soil Weed Seedbank
Previous Article in Journal
The Vernacular and Rural Houses of Agrarian Areas in the Zeta Region, Montenegro

Conservation Agriculture as a System to Enhance Ecosystem Services

ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil Science, Nabibagh, Bhopal 462038, Madhya Pradesh, India
School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane 4072, Australia
ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Bhuj 370105, Gujarat, India
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Paolo Ruisi
Agriculture 2021, 11(8), 718;
Received: 25 June 2021 / Revised: 22 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 July 2021 / Published: 29 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conservation Agriculture and Management of Soil and Water)


Conservation agriculture (CA) is considered a sustainable practice with the potential to maintain or increase crop productivity and improve environmental quality and ecosystem services. It typically improves soil quality and water conservation; however, its effect on crop productivity is highly variable and dependent on local conditions/management. Crop residue retention plays a crucial role in CA and can help to improve overall soil health and ultimately crop productivity and sustainability. However, weed control, herbicide resistance, and weed shift under residue retained fields is a major challenge. Moreover, CA can increase water infiltration and reduce soil loss and runoff. This reduces the surface transport of nitrate and phosphorus from agricultural fields and the eutrophication of water bodies, although leaching of nitrate to groundwater can potentially increase. In addition, CA has been proposed as one of the components in climate-smart agriculture, owing to its reduced period to seed/plant next crop, reduced soil disturbance and low consumption of fossil fuels. Therefore, compared to the conventional intensive tillage, CA has a greater potential for soil C sequestration, favors higher soil biodiversity, lowers greenhouse gas emission, and can assist in mitigating climate change. However, not all experiments report a positive impact. The understanding and decoding the site-specific complexities of CA system is important and requires a multidisciplinary approach.
Keywords: conservation agriculture; no-till farming; ecosystem services; climate change; soil health; biodiversity; water; greenhouse gas; carbon sequestration conservation agriculture; no-till farming; ecosystem services; climate change; soil health; biodiversity; water; greenhouse gas; carbon sequestration

1. Introduction

Globally, conservation agriculture (CA)/no-till (NT) farming has been widely adopted and practiced (about 180 M ha of cropland, ~12.5% of total global cropland area in 2015/16 and an increase of 69% globally since 2008/09) [1] as it provides various benefits to agricultural production driven by soil and water conservation and improvement in soil health [1,2]. CA is often advocated as a sustainable farming practice that can not only maintain or increase crop productivity, but also improve carbon storage, environmental quality, and ecosystem services (ES) [2,3,4,5,6]. However, despite the proven benefits of CA, its adoption has been mainly limited to developed countries [1,7,8]. With the exception of South America, uptake in developing countries is often very low due to various socio-economic and logistical barriers to its implementation (e.g., insufficient access to finance and appropriate machinery, poor extension services, and poor crop yield due to problems with weed/residue/soil fertility management) [9,10]. Other issues such as weed shift, herbicide resistance, nutrient stratification [11], residue borne pest and diseases also hinder the adoption of CA in both developed and developing regions. However, in regions where CA practises are successfully implemented, they are often considered to be more sustainable and improve ES [6,12].
Ecosystems services can be defined as the direct as well as indirect benefits human beings obtain from ecosystems and can include provisioning (e.g., provision of food and fiber), regulating (e.g., regulation of air quality, flood control, and crop pollination), supporting (e.g., providing plants and animals with living space and supporting biodiversity), and cultural services (e.g., non-material benefits from ecosystems such as cultural identity and spiritual well-being) [13]. Over the past 50 years, anthropogenic activities have had an extensive impact on ecosystems and natural resources, owing to the high demand for food, fuel, energy, fiber, and mineral resources [13]. Human beings have largely benefited from this transformation at the cost of environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity [14]. However, an increasing awareness of the need to protect nature/natural resources has led to an improved understanding of the importance of ES and the need to more thoroughly study and account for their protection [6,15,16,17].
Research into ES can highlight the links between the natural and social systems that can help in developing a more sustainable ecosystem [18] (Figure 1a,b). In this regard, technologies applied in agriculture are studied for their contribution to ES. CA is widely advocated as a sustainable agricultural practice that can not only maintain or increase crop productivity, but also improves environmental quality [10] (Figure 1a,b). The FAO (2014) recommended CA as a “sustainable approach that could manage the agroecosystems to maintain sustainable crop production while protecting the natural resources and the environment” (Figure 1a,b). There are three main principles involved in CA, namely minimum or zero soil disturbances, crop rotation or intercropping, and permanent soil cover, with at least 30% of the soil covered through organic residue/mulch between the planting and harvesting [7,19] (Figure 2a,b). In addition to these principles, a fourth component of integrated pest and nutrient management has been proposed, especially for resource-poor farmers [20]. Relative to conventional agricultural systems, these practices can affect a number of important provisioning, regulating and supporting ecosystem services, as described below. The impact of CA on cultural services is considered outside the scope of this paper and will not be discussed.
In general, CA is designed in such a way that cultivation is minimized to avoid land degradation, while still maintaining the sustainability of agricultural production (Figure 2). Conservation agriculture changes soil properties and processes compared to conventional tillage-based agriculture. These changes can affect a number of ES (Table 1 and Figure 1 and Figure 3), including:
Provisioning services—CA can have influence on yield and productivity and, thus, the provision of food and fiber. In addition, it can have a significant influence on soil water storage.
Regulating services—CA has numerous important impacts on erosion, soil fertility, greenhouse gas emission, air and water quality, and the moderation of extreme events (floods/drought).
Supporting services—CA can impact soil biological community structure and diversity.
The ESs provided by CA follow a chain-like process. For example, improvement in soil aggregation in CA plots increases water infiltration and moisture retention, thus decreasing soil erosion and surface runoff, which also reduces the loss of nutrients from the topsoil and improves crop yield. Although CA can often provide improved ES relative to conventional intensive agriculture, for some producers, particularly smallholders, the adoption of CA can be slow due to the costs (e.g., new equipment and some initial loss of yield) and difficulties in its implementation [21]. However, as farmers play a crucial role in moderating ES through their land management practices, it is important to understand each of the ES delivered through CA in order to better promote it as a sustainable agricultural practice. This paper will deliver comprehensive information on the links between CA components and ES through a narrative review of peer-reviewed research papers.

2. Conservation Agriculture and Crop Productivity: The Rise and Fall of Yield

2.1. Water Storage

One of the most well-established benefits of CA systems is their ability to improve soil water storage. Reduced soil disturbance coupled with increased residue retention typically leads to increases in SOC at the soil surface in CA systems [24]. This increases aggregate stability, helps preserve macropores capable of rapidly transmitting water into the soil profile, and can improve rates of water infiltration and thus the capture of rainfall for crop use [25,26,27,28]. In addition, the retention of crop residues on the soil surface decreases rates of soil water evaporation [29], also contributing to increases in soil water storage. In drier rainfed regions, where water availability is one of the main factors limiting plant production, this increase in water storage can have a major positive impact on crop productivity and potentially help agricultural systems adapt to the increasing incidence of drought under climate change. In irrigated regions, it can reduce the amount of water required for crop production and help conserve water resources. However, in cold regions or where soils are prone to waterlogging, these improvements can lead to no, or reduced, yield benefit, as discussed below.

2.2. Yield and Productivity

Although CA has been delivering positive results on improving soil water conservation, the effects of CA on crop productivity are less clear cut [9,30] (Table 1). CA systems have been observed to increase [31,32,33], decrease [34] and lead to no change in yield [35,36]. The increase or decrease in crop yield following the adoption of CA largely depends on whether CA has been partially or fully implemented, regional climatic conditions, and the type of cropping systems and management practices followed [7,34,37,38] (Figure 3). For example:
  • Climatic conditions: In cooler regions, crop residue retention can lower soil temperatures, delay plant maturity and negatively affect yield [20,35,39]. Similarly, in higher rainfall regions with poorly drained soils, the increased infiltration, and lower evaporation in CA systems can lead to waterlogging and yield loss [35,39,40,41,42], although in suitably drained soils, CA can also bring yield advantages in wet climates [43,44]. In contrast, when CA is implemented in warmer and drier regions, higher yield is often observed due to a lowering of soil temperatures and increases in soil water storage [22,45,46].
  • Management practices: In conventional systems, cultivation is used to control many weeds, pests and diseases. If CA is implemented without suitable modifications to tillage/weed/pest/disease management systems, it can lead to increases in infestations and losses in yield [47,48,49]. Similarly, the high carbon (C):nitrogen (N) ratio of crop residue retained in CA systems can immobilize N and lead to N deficiency. If fertilizers or crop rotations incorporating legumes are not used to maintain available N, yield decreases can also occur [22]. However, when weeds/pests/diseases and nutrient availability are successfully managed, the improvements in soil physico-chemical properties often observed with CA (e.g., improved soil aggregation, soil structural stability, SOC, water storage, and nutrient supply) can lead to yield increases, particularly in CA systems that have been operating for a number of years and the physico-chemical benefits have increased over time [20,30].
  • Full versus partial implementation. Where the components of CA are only partially implemented, yield increases may be reduced. For example, no-till with crop residue retention can generate a higher yield than no-till (without residue) alone, owing to the improved soil qualities in crop residue mulching [45]. Similarly, when appropriate crop rotations are not implemented to help control weeds/pests/diseases and maintain soil fertility, yield loss can occur [50]. These variations in response highlight the need for an integrated approach and to apply caution when interpreting the results of research into CA. There is a need to standardize research methodologies (definitions/different components and techniques of CA) to avoid conflicting results due to incorrect classification of systems as CA [51].
A meta-analysis conducted by Pittelkow et al. [9] observed that globally there was an average yield reduction of −2.5% under CA practices (NT+ residue retention + crop diversification), which increased to ~9.9% when there was only partial implementation of CA components (NT alone). However, CA implementation in dry, rainfed areas lead to a 7.3% increase in crop yield, likely due to improvements in soil water storage. These results highlight the importance of implementing all components of the CA system to achieve maximum yield benefits and the need to implement it in a location-specific manner and appropriately adapt management practices to avoid yield loss. It may also take a number of years for yield improvements to be realized as until the soil quality is improved through these CA components, the yield gain under CA can be minimal [10].

3. Conservation Agriculture and Water: From Erosion to Eutrophication

To feed the growing human population (~7.9 billion), natural ecosystems are being increasingly converted to cultivated areas. This agricultural expansion leads to more soil disturbance and soil erosion, which degrades soil quality, leads to the pollution of waterways, and damages infrastructure [52,53]. For example, in South Asian countries, water erosion affects 21% of the total land area and is one of the main forms of land degradation [52,54], while worldwide, approximately 75 billion tonnes of soil is eroded from arable land each year [53].
Soil erosion under conventional agriculture is mainly attributed to greater soil disturbance and non-adoption of site-specific soil and water conservation measures. The inclusion of crop residue retention under CA can increase surface roughness and reduce runoff and soil losses [10,55]. Improvement in soil aggregate stability and water storage under CA also directly or indirectly affects runoff and soil losses [25,56,57]. The effectiveness of CA in reducing soil water erosion varies according to the climate, cropping system and experimental duration [6], although in comparison to conventional systems, and particularly those incorporating extended periods of bare fallow, CA can reduce annual soil loss by over 90% (Table 2).
Nitrogen and phosphorus (P) loss from agricultural fields into waterways can lead to eutrophication and N and P are recognized as major water pollutants worldwide [58]. As CA offers several advantages over conventional tillage in various aspects of soil and water conservation, it is also expected to affect N and P export [59]. CA can reduce soil loss and runoff due to less soil disturbance, greater surface stability and increased rates of water infiltration [20,60] (Figure 4 and Table 2). Where this is the case, the surface transport of N and P from agricultural fields into surface water bodies is expected to be reduced. However, in some instances, CA has been observed to increase rates of runoff (Table 3), particularly in the early stages of adoption when surface sealing can be a problem and tillage can increase rates of infiltration. Greater snow capture by standing stubble can also increase runoff in CA systems [61]. Under these circumstances, CA can increase the potential for the transport of soluble forms of N to surface water. Table 3 depicts some examples of the changes in surface runoff (mm) that have been observed under conventional and CA practices.
In addition, the increased infiltration of water into the soil profile under CA can also increase rates of profile leaching [62] and potentially increase the transport of nitrate into groundwater. Some studies have found increased rates of nitrate leaching from NT profiles [62,63], although others have also found that NT had no effect on nitrate loss [64] or could reduce nitrate concentration in groundwater [65]. The variability in these results is due to complex interaction and contribution of several factors, such as soil physical characteristics, rainfall patterns and soil management practices that directly or indirectly affect the nitrate mobility and export from the fields to another location [66]. In order to achieve the full potential of CA to reduce nitrate loss, cover crops and balanced fertilizer management needs to be incorporated into the CA system to improve soil nitrogen retention and water quality [67].
Conservation agriculture can also affect the transportation of pesticides to waterbodies. Crop residues can intercept pesticides, especially apolar pesticides or those with low polarity [68]. Therefore, retention of crop residues on the soil surface under CA can affect the efficiency of pesticide interception. When more than 30% of the soil surface is covered with crop residues, 40–70% of the applied pesticide can be intercepted [69]. Moreover, these crop residues have 10 to 60 times more sorption capacity than soil [70]. CA can also modify the concentration and transport of pesticides in the soil, although as pesticide behavior in soil is highly variable, the effect of CA on pesticide transport is also often inconsistent [58]. Conservation agriculture can enhance the soil organic matter content, especially in the top surface layers [2,25], which can increase the retention of pesticides and limit their susceptibility to microbial degradation. However, Alletto et al. [71] highlighted that the conservation tillage system has lesser effects than initial soil condition on pesticide transport. Overall, a recent review concluded that pesticide transport from CA systems in runoff can be greater, reduced and no different from conventional systems depending on the chemical in question, but that CA is more effective in reducing the transport of pesticides sorbed onto soil surfaces due to its ability to decrease erosion rates [72].

4. Large Scale Crop Residue Burning in Conventional Farming: A Significant Threat to Air Quality

The large scale burning of crop residues has numerous adverse effects including air pollution, due to the increase in particulate matter (also known as ‘black carbon’) and carbon emissions, which contributes to regional and global climate change. In areas where burning is widespread, such as the Indo-Gangetic plains (IGP), it can be responsible for significant health (toxic smog) and environmental impacts [84,85]. For example, Kaskaoutis et al. [86] used AERONET imaging data from the Kanpur Research Station for identifying hot-spots of residue burning. They reported that large scale atmospheric emissions, pollution, and accumulation of aerosols have increased over the IGP during the past decade, especially from October to February [87,88]. Carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are among the main components of smog. The smoke plumes from crop residue burning are mostly concentrated between the ground and about 800–900 m in altitude captured by the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) instrument. Where the uptake of CA in a region is widespread, the elimination of residue burning in favor of residue retention can thus lead to significant reductions in air pollution.

5. Conservation Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Decoding the Complexities

Crop and soil management practices affect the release as well as capture of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the soil to the atmosphere and vice-versa [89]. Consequently, agriculture has been identified as one of the four important sectors that could contribute to reducing global GHGs emissions [90]. The reduction in fuel usage associated with the smaller number of tillage operations under CA is well established to reduce GHGs emissions. For example, fossil fuel emissions from agricultural operations under conventional tillage (moldboard plough) were estimated to be 0.05 Mg ha−1 yr−1 compared to 0.03 Mg ha−1 yr−1 under no-till conditions [91]. In addition, the conversion from conventional to CA has been reported to lead to soil C sequestration, although the amount sequestered is often highly variable and dependent on climate, soil type and management practices. Estimates of C sequestration can be negative (i.e., net C loss) in cool moist regions where tillage buries residues in regions of the profile with lower decomposition rates and/or lowers yield [92], but positive in regions where soil and climate are favorable for biomass production, CA has a positive impact on yield, and the reduced soil disturbance helps protect organic matter from microbial decomposition [93,94]. Many worldwide estimates of average sequestration are around ~0.3–0.5 Mg ha−1 yr−1 [94,95,96,97], although in individual regions, higher rates may be observed (e.g., 0.85 Mg ha−1 yr−1 in Spain when NT has been in place for <10 years [98]). However, estimates are often highly uncertain due to the methodological challenges of measuring C change [24,99]. It should be noted that rates of sequestration will also decrease over time as sites approach their equilibrium C content.
In addition to C change, CA can also affect the flux of other GHGs, particularly methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Similar to C storage, CA has been observed to both increase and decrease N2O emissions (Table 4), depending on the influence it has on soil moisture and microbial activities and, thus, nitrification and denitrification. For example, where CA increases soil moisture, microbial biomass, and labile carbon, there is potential for greater rates of nitrification and denitrification and thus N2O emission [6]. However, when CA lowers soil temperatures, and improves soil structure and drainage, denitrification and N2O emissions can decrease [6,100]. Less information is available regarding the impact of CA on CH4 emissions; however, these are commonly observed to either remain unchanged or decrease due to improvements in aggregate stability/porosity and the subsequent uptake of CH4 by methanotrophic bacteria [95,101].
Overall, it is the net impact that CA has on CO2, CH4 and N2O flux that determines whether a CA system will act as a net sink or source of GHGs. However, relatively few studies consider the flux of all GHGs from the soil concurrently. One meta-analysis that summarized the results of nine studies conducted globally reported an average difference in global warming potential (GWP) of −2.39 Mg ha−1 yr−1 in NT compared to conventionally tilled systems when considering both soil GHGs flux and emissions from farm operations [102]. However, a second analysis noted greater GHGs emissions from the soil of NT compared to conventional systems during the first 5 years of practice (GWP of +0.39 and +1.51 Mg ha−1 yr−1 in humid and dry temperate regions, respectively), but lower or similar emissions after 20 years (GWP −2.07 and −0.36 Mg ha−1 yr−1 in humid and dry temperate regions, respectively) [103]. The decline in GHG emissions in NT systems over time was largely due to declines in N2O emissions, which have been found to reduce as soil aggregation and drainage improve in more established NT systems [103].

6. Can Conservation Agriculture Really Conserve Soil Biodiversity?

As CA promotes the accumulation of soil organic carbon at the surface of the profile, it is expected that the microbial activity and biomass must be higher in CA farms due to the increased availability of organic substrates [110]. The improvements in soil aggregation, aeration and moisture availability also create favorable conditions for increases in both the size and diversity of microbial populations, as can crop diversification through crop rotation or intercropping [111]. Full implementation of CA components has been reported to increase the diversity of both fungal and bacterial populations [112], with NT in particular favoring the increase in fungal diversity due to the absence of tillage [113]. The increase in microbial diversity has several significant implications for crop productivity and soil health. For example, several plant growth-promoting soil microbes proliferate in these favorable conditions and contribute to enhanced plant growth, disease suppression and abiotic stress tolerance [114]. Microbial-induced enzymes associated with nutrient cycling are also found in greater amounts under CA, leading to higher nutrient availability under CA [115].
CA has the potential to not only improve microbial diversity but also to influence such soil macro-fauna as earthworms, ants, termites and beetles [116]. These macro-fauna improve soil health by breaking down plant residues, increasing macroporosity, and improving water infiltration, soil aggregation and nutrient cycling [117]. Intensive tillage practices often kill or disturb the functions of soil macro-fauna, exposing them to the soil surface and other predators. This loss of soil biodiversity severely affects the soil physico-chemical properties and ultimately influences crop productivity. Therefore, biological parameters are often used as indices in characterization of CA soils. The significant effects of CA on soil macro-fauna could be greater in warm temperate zones and soils with higher clay content (>30%) and low soil pH (<5.5) [116].

7. Conclusions

Compared to conventional agriculture, CA improves several aspects of cropping systems that can enhance ES. Conservation agriculture improves soil structure and typically leads to reduced soil erosion and surface runoff. It is particularly advantageous in drier regions, where it helps to increase soil water storage and maintain greater crop yield. Compared to the intensive agriculture, CA also generally enhances soil organic carbon storage, particularly in the topsoil. This can help with climate mitigation through carbon sequestration, reduced emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) and water regulation. However, not all experiments report that CA has a positive impact on ES. This can be due to the duration of experiments, as well as cropping system, climate, soil type and land management practices. Therefore, understanding and decoding the complexities involved in soil–climate-management-dependent CA is important and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Whether CA can deliver significant ESs under a climate changing scenario is also an important question that needs to be addressed by studying the differential effects of temperature, warming and changes to rainfall patterns on soil processes and ES in CA-adopted farms/experiments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.P.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J. and A.N.; writing—review and editing, S.J., Y.P.D., A.N., K.L.P. and R.C.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Global spread of conservation agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 76, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dalal, R.C.; Allen, D.E.; Wang, W.J.; Reeves, S.; Gibson, I. Organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks in a Vertisol following 40 years of no-tillage, crop residue retention and nitrogen fertilisation. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 112, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Goddard, T.; Zoebisch, M.; Gan, Y.; Eillis, W.; Watson, A. Sombatpanit. In No-Till Farming Systems. Special Publication No. 3; World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWC): Bangkok, Thailand, 2008; p. 544. [Google Scholar]
  4. Triplett, G.B.; Van Doren, D.M.; Johnson, W.H. Non-plowed, strip-tilled corn culture. Trans. ASAE 1964, 7, 105–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alvarez, R.A. Review of nitrogen fertilizer and conservation tillage effects on soil organic carbon storage. Soil Use Manag. 2005, 21, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Palm, C.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; DeClerck, F.; Gatere, L.; Grace, P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hobbs, P.R.; Sayre, K.; Gupta, R. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Triplett, G.B.; Dick, W.A. No-tillage crop production: A revolution in agriculture. Agron. J. 2008, 100, S153–S165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pittelkow, C.M.; Liang, X.; Linquist, B.A.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Lundy, M.E.; Van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; van Kessel, C. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 2015, 517, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Somasundaram, J.; Sinha, N.K.; Dalal, R.C.; Lal, R.; Mohanty, M.; Naorem, A.K.; Hati, K.M.; Chaudhary, R.S.; Biswas, A.K.; Patra, A.K. No-till farming and conservation agriculture in South Asia—Issues, challenges, prospects and benefits. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2020, 39, 236–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kushwah, S.S.; Damodar Reddy, D.; Somasundaram, J.; Srivastava, S.; Khamparia, R.S. Crop residue retention and nutrient management practices on stratification of phosphorus and soil organic carbon in the soybean–wheat system in vertisols of central India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 2387–2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lal, R. Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 28, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Assessment, M.E. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  14. Vihervaara, P.; Rönkä, M.; Walls, M. Trends in ecosystem service research: Early steps and current drivers. Ambio 2010, 39, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ehrlich, P.R.; Ehrlich, A.H. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  17. Birkhofer, K.; Diehl, E.; Andersson, J.; Ekroos, J.; Früh-Müller, A.; Machnikowski, F.; Mader, V.L.; Nilsson, L.; Sasaki, K.; Rundlöf, M.; et al. Ecosystem services—Current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 2, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abrol, I.P.; Gupta, R.K.; Malik, R.K. Conservation Agriculture. Status and Prospects; Centre for Advancement of Sustainable Agriculture: New Delhi, India, 2005; p. 242. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lal, R.A. System approach to conservation agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2015, 70, 82A–88A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aryal, J.P.; Sapkota, T.B.; Khurana, R.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Rahut, D.B.; Jat, M.L. Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: Adaptation options in small- holder production systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 22, 5045–5075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Page, K.L.; Dang, Y.P.; Dalal, R.C.; Reeves, S.; Thomas, G.; Wang, W.; Thompson, J. Changes in soil water storage with no-tillage and crop residue retention on a Vertisol: Impact on productivity and profitability over a 50 year period. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Montgomery, D.R. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 13268–13272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Page, K.L.; Dang, Y.P.; Dalal, R.C. The Ability of Conservation Agriculture to Conserve Soil Organic Carbon and the Subsequent Impact on Soil Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties and Yield. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Somasundaram, J.; Reeves, S.; Wang, W.; Heenan, M.; Dalal, R.C. Impact of 47 years of no tillage and stubble retention on soil aggregation and carbon distribution in a Vertisol. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 1589–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Page, K.L.; Dang, Y.P.; Menzies, N.W.; Dalal, R.C. No-Till Systems to Sequester Soil Carbon: Potential and Reality. In No-Till Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities; Dang, Y.P., Dalal, R.C., Menzies, N.W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 301–317. [Google Scholar]
  27. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Mechanisms of carbon sequestration in soil aggregates. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2004, 23, 481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Ruis, S.J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 2018, 326, 164–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Cui, S.; Jagadamma, S.; Zhang, Q.P. Residue retention and minimum tillage improve physical environment of the soil in croplands: A global meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farooq, M.; Flower, K.C.; Jabran, K.; Wahid, A.; Siddique, K.H. Crop yield and weed management in rainfed conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thomas, G.A.; Titmarsh, G.W.; Freebairn, D.M.; Radford, B.J. No-tillage and conservation farming practices in grain growing areas of Queensland—A review of 40 years of development. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 887–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miguez, F.E.; Bollero, G.A. Review of corn yield response under winter cover cropping systems using meta-analytic methods. Crop Sci. 2005, 45, 2318–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Erenstein, O. Cropping systems and crop residue management in the Trans-Gangetic Plains: Issues and challenges for conservation agriculture from village surveys. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van den Putte, A.; Govers, G.; Diels, J.; Gillijns, K.; Demuzere, M. Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: A meta-regression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 33, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rusinamhodzi, L.; Corbeels, M.; van Wijk, M.T.; Rufino, M.C.; Nyamangara, J.; Giller, K.E. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zheng, C.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, C.; Sun, Y.; Feng, J.; Deng, A.; Song, Z.; Zhang, W. The impacts of conservation agriculture on crop yield in China depend on specific practices, crops and cropping regions. Crop J. 2014, 2, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Giller, K.E.; Witter, E.; Corbeels, M.; Tittonell, P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crop Res. 2009, 114, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jat, H.S.; Datta, A.; Choudhary, M.; Sharma, P.C.; Yadav, A.K.; Choudhary, V.; Vishu, G.M.; Jat, M.L.; McDonald, A. Climate Smart Agriculture practices improve soil organic carbon pools, biological properties and crop productivity in cereal-based systems of North-West India. Catena 2019, 181, 104059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, H.; Lal, R.; Zhao, X.; Xue, J.; Chen, F. Opportunities and challenges of soil carbon sequestration by conservation agriculture in Chin. Adv. Agron. 2014, 124, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Boomsma, C.R.; Santini, J.B.; West, T.D.; Brewer, J.C.; McIntyre, L.M.; Vyn, T.J. Maize grain yield responses to plant height variability resulting from crop rotation and tillage system in a long-term experiment. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 106, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, S.Y.; Zhang, X.Y.; Pei, D.; Sun, H.Y.; Chen, S.L. Effects of straw mulching on soil temperature, evaporation and yield of winter wheat: Field experiments on the North China Plain. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2007, 150, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Deubel, A.; Hofmann, B.; Orzessek, D. Long-term effects of tillage on stratification and plant availability of phosphate and potassium in a loess chernozem. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 117, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Reynolds, A.J. A Farmer’s Experience of Conservation Agriculture in the UK. In The Oxford Handbook of Food, Water and Society; Allan, T., Bromwich, B., Keulertz, M., Colman, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  44. Beach, H.M.; Laing, K.W.; Walle, M.V.; Martin, R.C. The Current State and Future Directions of Organic No-Till Farming with Cover Crops in Canada, with Case Study Support. Sustainability 2018, 10, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, X.; Wu, H.; Dai, K.; Zhang, D.; Feng, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Wu, X.; Jin, K.; Cai, D.; Oenema, O.; et al. Tillage and crop residue effects on rainfed wheat and maize production in northern China. Field Crops Res. 2012, 132, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. He, J.; Li, H.; Rasaily, R.G.; Wang, Q.; Cai, G.; Su, Y.; Qiao, X.; Liu, L. Soil properties and crop yields after 11 years of no tillage farming in wheat–maize cropping system in North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 113, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kaschuk, G.; Alberton, O.; Hungria, M. Three decades of soil microbial biomass studies in Brazilian ecosystems: Lessons learned about soil quality and indications for improving sustainability. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kirkegaard, J.A. A review of trends in wheat yield responses to conservation cropping in Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1995, 35, 835–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Duan, T.; Shen, Y.; Facelli, E.; Smith, S.E.; Nan, Z. New agricultural practices in the Loess Plateau of China do not reduce colonisation by arbuscular mycorrhizal or root invading fungi and do not carry a yield penalty. Plant Soil 2010, 331, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rusinamhodzi, L. Managing Crop Rotations in No-till Farming Systems. In No-Till Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture; Dang, Y.P., Dalal, R.C., Menzies, N.W., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  51. Derpsch, R.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Duiker, S.W.; Reicosky, D.C.; Koeller, K.; Friedrich, T.; Sturny, W.G.; Sá, J.C.; Weiss, K. Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research? Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 137, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lal, R. Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food Sec. 2009, 1, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Fleischer, L.R.; Lugato, E.; Ballabio, C.; Alewell, C.; Meusburger, K.; Modugno, S.; Sch€utt, B.; Ferro, V.; et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. FAO. What Is Conservation Agriculture? Available online: (accessed on 1 June 2021).
  55. Alam, M.K.; Salahin, N.; Islam, S.; Begum, R.A.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Islam, M.S.; Rahman, M.M. Patterns of change in soil organic matter, physical properties and crop productivity under tillage practices and cropping systems in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 155, 216–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mitchell, J. Conservation agriculture systems. CAB Rev. 2019, 14, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Somasundaram, J.; Chaudhary, R.S.; Awanish Kumar, D.; Biswas, A.K.; Sinha, N.K.; Mohanty, M.; Hati, K.M.; Jha, P.; Sankar, M.; Patra, A.K.; et al. Effect of contrasting tillage and cropping systems on soil aggregation, carbon pools and aggregate-associated carbon in rainfed vertisols. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xia, Y.; Zhang, M.; Tsang, D.C.; Geng, N.; Lu, D.; Zhu, L. Recent advances in control technologies for non point source pollution with nitrogen and phosphorous from agricultural runoff: Current practices and future prospects. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2020, 63, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.A. Impacts of no-tillage management on nitrate loss from corn, soybean and wheat cultivation: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Sun, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Shi, Q.; Pan, X.; Huang, S. No-tillage controls on runoff: A meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 153, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cessna, A.J.; McConkey, B.G.; Elliott, J.A. Herbicide Transport in Surface Runoff from Conventional and Zero-Tillage Fields. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 782–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Turpin, J.E.; Thompson, J.P.; Waring, S.A.; MacKenzie, J. Nitrate and chloride leaching in Vertosols for different tillage and stubble practices in fallow-grain cropping. Soil Res. 1998, 36, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bakhsh, A.; Kanwar, R.S.; Bailey, T.B.; Cambardella, C.A.; Karlen, D.L.; Colvin, T.S. Cropping system effects on NO3–N loss with subsurface drainage water. Trans. ASAE 2002, 45, 1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bjorneberg, D.L.; Kanwar, R.S.; Melvin, S.W. Seasonal changes in flow and nitrate-N loss from subsurface drains. Trans. ASAE. 1996, 39, 961–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rekha, P.N.; Kanwar, R.; Nayak, A.; Hoang, C.; Pederson, C. Nitrate leaching to shallow groundwater systems from agricultural fields with different management practices. J. Environ. Monit. 2011, 13, 2550–2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Amon-Armah, F.; Ahmad, N.H.; Hebb, D.; Jamieson, R.; Burton, D.; Madani, A. Effect of nutrient management planning on crop yield, nitrate leaching and sediment loading in Thomas Brook Watershed. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 1177–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.A. Global synthesis of drought effects on cereal, legume, tuber and root crops production: A review. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 1, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zablotowicz, R.M.; Locke, M.A.; Gaston, L.A.; Bryson, C.T. Interactions of tillage and soil depth on fluometuron degradation in a Dundee silt loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 57, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ghadiri, H.; Shea, P.J.; Wicks, G.A.; Haderlie, L.C. Atrazine dissipation in conventional-till and no-till sorghum. J. Environ. Qual. 1984, 13, 549–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Reddy, K.N.; Locke, M.A.; Wagner, S.C.; Zablotowicz, R.M.; Gaston, L.A.; Smeda, R.J. Chlorimuron ethyl sorption and desorption kinetics in soils and herbicide-dessicated cover crop residues. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 2752–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Alletto, L.; Coquet, Y.; Benoit, P.; Heddadj, D.; Barriuso, E. Tillage management effects on pesticide fate in soils. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 367–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Silburn, D.M. Pesticide Retention, Degradation, and Transport Off-Farm. In No-Till Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture; Dang, Y.P., Dalal, R.C., Menzies, N.W., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 281–297. [Google Scholar]
  73. Araya, T.; Cornelis, W.M.; Nyssen, J.; Govaerts, B.; Bauer, H.; Gebreegziabher, T.; Oicha, T.; Raes, D.; Sayre, K.D.; Haile, M.; et al. Effects of conservation agriculture on runoff, soil loss and crop yield under rainfed conditions in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manag. 2011, 27, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Seitz, S.; Goebes, P.; Puerta, V.L.; Pereira, E.I.; Wittwer, R.; Six, J.; van der Heijden, M.G.; Scholten, T. Conservation tillage and organic farming reduce soil erosion. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 39, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Carretta, L.; Tarolli, P.; Cardinali, A.; Nasta, P.; Romano, N.; Masin, R. Evaluation of runoff and soil erosion under conventional tillage and no-till management: A case study in northeast Italy. Catena 2021, 197, 104972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Freebairn, D.M.; Loch, R.J.; Cogle, A.L. Tillage methods and soil and water conservation in Australia. Soil Tillage Res. 1993, 27, 303–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Raczkowski, C.W.; Reyes, M.R.; Reddy, G.B.; Busscher, W.J.; Bauer, P.J. Comparison of conventional and no-tillage corn and soybean production on runoff and erosion in the southeastern US Piedmont. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2009, 64, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lal, R. Soil degradative effects of slope length and tillage methods on alfisols in western Nigeria. I. Runoff, erosion and crop response. Land Degrad. Dev. 1997, 8, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Williams, J.D.; Gollany, H.T.; Siemens, M.C.; Wuest, S.B.; Long, D.S. Comparison of runoff, soil erosion, and winter wheat yields from no-till and inversion tillage production systems in northeastern Oregon. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2009, 64, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kisic, I.; Basic, F.; Nestroy, O.; Mesic, M.; Butorac, A. Soil erosion under different tillage methods in central Croatia. Bodenkult.-Wien Munch. 2012, 53, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
  81. Harrold, L.L.; Edwards, W.M. No-Tillage System Reduces Erosion From Continuous Corn Watersheds. Trans. ASAE 1974, 17, 414–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kurothe, R.S.; Kumar, G.; Singh, R.; Singh, H.B.; Tiwari, S.P.; Vishwakarma, A.K.; Sena, D.R.; Pande, V.C. Effect of tillage and cropping systems on runoff, soil loss and crop yields under semiarid rainfed agricul- ture in India. Soil Tillage Res. 2014, 140, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Adimassu, Z.; Alemu, G.; Tamene, L. Effects of tillage and crop residue management on runoff, soil loss and crop yield in the Humid Highlands of Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2019, 168, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jayaraman, K.S. Crop residue burning affects large parts of India. Nat. India 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ahmed, T.; Ahmad, B.; Ahmad, W. Why do farmers burn rice residue? Examining farmers’ choices in Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kaskaoutis, D.G.; Singh, R.P.; Gautam, R.; Sharma, M.; Kosmopoulos, P.G.; Tripathi, S.N. Variability and trends of aerosol properties over Kanpur, northern India using AERONET data (2001–10). Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 024003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kaskaoutis, D.G.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, D.; Singh, R.P.; Kharol, S.K.; Sharma, M.; Singh, A.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, A.; Singh, D. Effects of crop residue burning on aerosol properties, plume characteristics, and long-range transport over northern India. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 119, 5424–5444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sarkar, S.; Singh, R.P.; Chauhan, A. Crop residue burning in northern India: Increasing threat to greater India. J. Geophy. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 6920–6934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.L.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. UNEP. The Emissions Gap Report 2012—A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Synthesis Report; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
  91. Kern, J.S.; Johnson, M.G. Conservation tillage impacts on national soil and atmospheric carbon levels. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1993, 57, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Christopher, S.F.; Lal, R.; Mishra, U. Regional study of no-till effects on carbon sequestration in the Midwestern United States. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bernoux, M.; Cerri, C.C.; Cerri, C.E.; Siqueira-Neto, M.; Metay, A.; Perrin, A.S.; Scopel, E.; Razafimbelo, T.; Blavet, D.; Piccolo, M.D.; et al. Cropping systems, carbon sequestration and erosion in Brazil, a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mangalassery, S.; Sjögersten, S.; Sparkes, D.L.; Mooney, S.J. Examining the potential for climate change mitigation from zero tillage. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 1151–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Six, J.; Feller, C.; Denef, K.; Ogle, S.; De Moraes Sa, J.C.; Albrecht, A. Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils—Effects of no-tillage. Agronomie 2002, 22, 755–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Puget, P.; Lal, R. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen in a Mollisol in Central Ohio as affected by tillage and land use. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 80, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. West, T.O.; Post, W.M. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 1930–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. González-Sánchez, E.J.; Ordóñez-Fernández, R.; Carbonell-Bojollo, R.; Veroz-González, O.; Gil-Ribes, J.A. Meta-analysis on atmospheric carbon capture in Spain through the use of conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 122, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Powlson, D.S.; Stirling, C.M.; Thierfelder, C.; White, R.P.; Jat, M.L. Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 220, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Govaerts, B.; Verhulst, N.; Castellanos-Navarrete, A.; Sayre, K.D.; Dixon, J.; Dendooven, L. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: Between myth and farmer reality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2009, 28, 97–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Abdalla, M.; Osborne, B.; Lanigan, G.; Forristal, D.; Williams, M.; Pea, S. Conservation tillage systems a review of its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Use Manag. 2013, 29, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sainju, U.M. A global meta-analysis on the impact of management practices on net global warming potential and greenhouse gas intensity from cropland soils. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0148527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Six, J.; Ogle, S.M.; Breidt, F.J.; Conant, R.T.; Mosier, A.R.; Paustian, K. The potential to mitigate global warming with no tillage management is only realized when practiced in the long term. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bista, P.; Machado, S.; Ghimire, R.; Del-Grosso, S.J.; Reyes-Fox, M. Simulating Organic Carbon in a Wheat-Fallow System Using Daycent Model. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 2554–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tian, S.; Ning, T.; Zhao, H.; Wang, B.; Li, N.; Huifang, L.Z.; Chi, S. Response of CH4 and N2O Emissions and Wheat Yields to Tillage Method Changes in the North China Plain. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kumar, S.; Nakajima, T.; Kadono, A.; Lal, R.; Fausey, N. Long-term tillage and drainage influences on greenhouse gas fluxes from a poorly drained soil of central Ohio. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2014, 69, 553–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ussiri, D.A.; Lal, R.; Jarecki, M.K. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from long-term tillage under a continuous corn cropping system in Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wang, W.; Dalal, R.C.; Reeves, S.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Kiese, R. Greenhouse gas fluxes from an Australian subtropical cropland under long-term contrasting management regimes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 3089–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Yao, Z.; Zheng, X.; Wang, R.; Xie, B.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Zhu, J. Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes from a rice–wheat crop rotation under wheat residue incorporation and no tillage practices. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 79, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Helgason, B.L.; Walley, F.L.; Germida, J.J. Fungal and bacterial abundance in long-term no-till and intensive-till soils of the northern Great Plains. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Di Falco, S.; Zoupanidou, E. Soil Fertility, Crop Biodiversity, and Farmers’ Revenues: Evidence from Italy. Ambio 2017, 46, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Yang, A.N.; Hu, J.L.; Lin, X.G.; Zhu, A.N.; Wang, J.H.; Dai, J.; Wong, M.H. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community structure and diversity in response to 3-year conservation tillage management in a sandy loam soil in North China. J. Soils Sediments 2012, 12, 835–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhang, X.; Xin, X.; Zhu, A.; Yang, W.; Zhang, J.; Ding, S.; Mu, L.; Shao, L. Linking macroaggregation to soil microbial community and organic carbon accumulation under different tillage and residue managements. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 178, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Somasundaram, J.; Naorem, A.K.; Lal, R.; Dalal, R.C.; Sinha, N.K.; Patra, A.K.; Chaudhari, S.K. Disease-Suppressive Soils—Beyond Food Production: A Critical Review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 1437–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mbuthia, L.W.; Acosta-Martínez, V.; DeBruyn, J.; Schaeffer, S.; Tyler, D.; Odoi, E.; Mpheshea, M.; Walker, F.; Eash, N. Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: Implications for soil quality. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 89, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Briones, M.J.; Schmidt, O. Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 4396–4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Spurgeon, D.J.; Keith, A.M.; Schmidt, O.; Lammertsma, D.R.; Faber, J.H. Land-use and land-management change: Relationships with earthworm and fungi communities and soil structural properties. BMC Ecol. 2013, 13, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (a) Ecosystem services offered through conservation agriculture (top); and (b) a schematic diagram depicting the main ecosystem services delivered through conservation agriculture (Source: Modified from [12]).
Figure 1. (a) Ecosystem services offered through conservation agriculture (top); and (b) a schematic diagram depicting the main ecosystem services delivered through conservation agriculture (Source: Modified from [12]).
Agriculture 11 00718 g001
Figure 2. Crop raised under conservation agriculture: (a) Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) (left), (b) wheat (Triticum aestivum) (right).
Figure 2. Crop raised under conservation agriculture: (a) Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) (left), (b) wheat (Triticum aestivum) (right).
Agriculture 11 00718 g002
Figure 3. Probable reasons for yield fluctuations in conservation agriculture.
Figure 3. Probable reasons for yield fluctuations in conservation agriculture.
Agriculture 11 00718 g003
Figure 4. Effect of conservation agriculture on water erosion.
Figure 4. Effect of conservation agriculture on water erosion.
Agriculture 11 00718 g004
Table 1. Comparison of ecosystem services typically provided by conservation agriculture (CA/NT) versus conventional farming practices (CT).
Table 1. Comparison of ecosystem services typically provided by conservation agriculture (CA/NT) versus conventional farming practices (CT).
Agriculture 11 00718 i001
↑ Indicates higher; ↓ indicates lower; ↔ No effect Arrows on an angle indicate more gradual change over time (Source: [10,22,23]).
Table 2. Comparison of conservation agriculture (CA) and conventional tillage (CT) on soil loss (t/ha).
Table 2. Comparison of conservation agriculture (CA) and conventional tillage (CT) on soil loss (t/ha).
Cropping SystemLocationYearType of SoilSoil Loss (t/ha)Change of CA over CT (%)References
Wheat-Teff (NT on raised beds)North Ethiopia2005–2007Calcic Vertisol245↓79[73]
Fallow land-winter wheatZurich, Switzerland2014–2017Loamy cambisols2.66 **0.49 **↓81[74]
Wheat-soybean-maizeNortheast Italy2017–2018Silty loam3.370.41↓88[75]
WheatQueensland Australia1978–1988Fine textured soil644↓94[76]
Corn and soybeanNorth Carolina July 1997
June 2000
July 1997
Sandy clay loam and clay loam (fine mixed, active, thermic, Ultic Hapludalfs)241.8
Maize Nigeria1984–1987Oxic Paleustalf6.900.46↓93[78]
Winter wheat-fallow-winter chickpeaNorth eastern Oregon, USA2001–2004Typic Haploxerolls11 *0.21 *↓98[79]
MaizeDaruvar, CentralCrotia1995Stagnic Luvisols146.322.8↓84[80]
Winter wheat1996/9786.70.21↓99
MaizeOhio, USA1970–1973Silt Loam23.9 0.26↓99[81]
↓ arrow indicates reduction compared to conventional tillage; * mean data t/ha/yr ** mean data of four years in t/ha/h.
Table 3. Comparison of conservation agriculture (CA) and conventional tillage (CT) on surface runoff (mm).
Table 3. Comparison of conservation agriculture (CA) and conventional tillage (CT) on surface runoff (mm).
Cropping SystemLocationYearType of SoilRunoff (mm)Change of CA over CT (%)References
Green gram-mustard and pearl millet + pigeon peaVasad, India1990–1993Coarse loamy soil241.9160.7↓34[82]
Cowpea-mustard and cowpea-castor 1995–2001234.8230.4↓2
WheatQueensland, Australia1978–1988Fine textured soil9881↓17[76]
Wheat-Teff (NT on raised beds)North Ethiopia2005–2007Calcic Vertisol98.146.3↓53[73]
Wheat-soybean-maizeNortheast Italy2017–2018Sandy clay loam60.927.5↓58[75]
Wheat (1 t residue/ha/year)
Wheat (2 t residue/ha/year)
Humid Highlands, Ethoipia2009–2011Eutric Nitisols214.6
Wheat-fallowSaskatchewan, Canada1995–2000Brown Chernozm27.152.6↑48[61]
Winter wheat-fallow-winter chickpeaNorth eastern Oregon, USA2001–2004Typic Haploxerolls79 *23 *↓71[79]
MaizeDaruvar, Central Crotia1995Stagnic Luvisols186.377.8↓58[80]
Winter wheat1996/97118.255.5↓53
↓/↑ arrows indicate reduction/increase compared to conventional tillage; * average values for the study period in mm/yr.
Table 4. N2O production in some of the conventional (CT) and conservation agriculture (CA: reduced or no-till) practices.
Table 4. N2O production in some of the conventional (CT) and conservation agriculture (CA: reduced or no-till) practices.
CropLocationSoil TypeN2O Production (kg ha−1)Change in CA over CT (%)References
WheatUSALoamy (Ustic Torriorthents)4.093.12−23.71[104]
WheatNorth ChinaLoamy2.141.46−31.74[105]
CornOhioSilt loam8.264.42−46.48[106]
CornOhioSilt loam (Aeric Ochraqualf)1.820.94−48.35[107]
Wheat (stubble, 90kg N ha−1)AustraliaClay Vertisol1.941.30−49.23[108]
Wheat (straw incorporated)
Wheat (no straw incorporation)
Southeast ChinaSandy loam1.53
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop