Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38649721›Full record

SynthesisNature communications2024

A global meta-analysis on the effects of organic and inorganic fertilization on grasslands and croplands.

Ting-Shuai Shi, Scott L Collins, Kailiang Yu, Josep Peñuelas, Jordi Sardans, Hailing Li, Jian-Sheng Ye

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ting-Shuai ShiState Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Scott L CollinsDepartment of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0193-2892
Kailiang YuHigh Meadows Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0145-0356
Josep PeñuelasCSIC, Global Ecology Unit CREAF-CSIC-UAB, Barcelona, 08193, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7215-0150
Jordi SardansCSIC, Global Ecology Unit CREAF-CSIC-UAB, Barcelona, 08193, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2478-0219
Hailing LiState Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Jian-Sheng YeState Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-ecosystems, College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China. yejsh@lzu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5335-7896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A central role for nature-based solution is to identify optimal management practices to address environmental challenges, including carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation. Inorganic fertilization increases plant aboveground biomass but often causes a tradeoff with plant diversity loss. It remains unclear, however, whether organic fertilization, as a potential nature-based solution, could alter this tradeoff by increasing aboveground biomass without plant diversity loss. Here we compile data from 537 experiments on organic and inorganic fertilization across grasslands and croplands worldwide to evaluate the responses of aboveground biomass, plant diversity, and soil organic carbon (SOC). Both organic and inorganic fertilization increase aboveground biomass by 56% and 42% relative to ambient, respectively. However, only inorganic fertilization decreases plant diversity, while organic fertilization increases plant diversity in grasslands with greater soil water content. Moreover, organic fertilization increases SOC in grasslands by 19% and 15% relative to ambient and inorganic fertilization, respectively. The positive effect of organic fertilization on SOC increases with increasing mean annual temperature in grasslands, a pattern not observed in croplands. Collectively, our findings highlight organic fertilization as a potential nature-based solution that can increase two ecosystem services of grasslands, forage production, and soil carbon storage, without a tradeoff in plant diversity loss.

Indexed as

BiodiversityBiomassCarbonFertilizersGrasslandSoilAgricultureCarbon SequestrationConservation of Natural ResourcesCrops, AgriculturalEcosystemCarbonFertilizersSoil

Identifiers

PMID38649721
PMCPMC11035549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.