Jason Taylor Arp
Debankur Sanyal
Jashandeep Kaur2- 1Department of Environmental Science, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States
- 2College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States
- 3Department of Agronomy, Horticulture, and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, United States
The exploitation of natural resources used in food production systems, including productive soils, has occurred due to intensive and degenerative agricultural practices aiming at food security. These degenerative practices have pronounced effects on arid and semi-arid ecosystems, increasing rates of soil degradation in productive agricultural regions throughout the world. The idea of regenerative agriculture (RA) started in the 1980s, defined as a system that moves beyond sustainability in an attempt to actively improve resources through production practices. These practices include approaches like reduced tillage intensity, cover crops, crop rotation, and livestock integration, which are globally recognized as soil health practices (SHPs). Information regarding the efficacy and barriers to the adoption of SHPs in dryland agricultural systems is sparse. In this article, literature is compiled and reviewed to assess the feasibility of prominent SHPs in dryland systems, with special focus on the arid and semi-arid systems. Extensive research has shown that SHPs potentially improve soil physical, chemical, and biological properties; however, reports of potential obstacles like yield loss, lack of short- and medium-term economic gains, and inaccessibility of proper equipment are preventing a smooth transition to regenerative systems. The success of RA practices varies depending on the dominant cash crop type, geographical region, whether the practices are used in tandem with one another, and socioeconomic factors. The extreme weather and water scarcity of dryland systems make it challenging to integrate RA practices effectively. Furthermore, the adoption of RA practices in large-scale commercial agriculture often hinges on economic variables like the cost of new machinery and the labor costs to implement the new practices. Here, the outcomes of SHPs are reviewed to clarify existing knowledge to enhance RA adoption for providing food security in a cost-effective, environmentally safe, and sustainable way while stabilizing the farm economy through increasing the profits of farms and diversifying farm incomes.
1 Introduction
The development of agriculture has been the single largest driver of human development in history. This has been a key element in the early growth stages of the Anthropocene, the modern epoch defined by human activity (Iweriebor, 2011; Azhar, 2016). Agriculture itself is a resource- and energy-intensive endeavor, requiring large land allocations, fertile soil, and plentiful labor. As new crop production techniques and breeding technologies are developed, more crops can be produced to support an increasing global population. This heightened rate of crop production also leads to unsustainable utilization and exhaustion of natural resources like the soil, water, and fossil fuels used in the process (Cronin, 2009).
Recent global syntheses report that current agricultural systems perform at a production scale that drives several environmental crises. Food systems currently contribute 21-37% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019). In addition, roughly one-third of the planet’s soils are degraded; this degradation, in the form of erosion, organic matter loss, and salinization, disproportionately impacts dryland ecosystems (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2021). Ecosystem functions, including nutrient cycling and maintenance of species biodiversity, have also been attributed to agricultural expansion and intensification (Steffen et al., 2015). In response, international assessments emphasize that meeting food demands while maintaining ecosystem health requires transformative changes in agricultural management (Willett et al., 2019).
Sustainable agriculture is a set of agricultural practices that ‘do no harm.’ This means that sustainable agriculture allows for the continued production of crops without compromising nonrenewable resources like soils and fossil fuels for future generations (Robertson, 2015). Meanwhile, while regenerative agriculture (RA) does not have a fixed definition. It is generally agreed that RA practices are those that enhance resources and effectiveness of their utilization (Figure 1), like fertile soils by improving soil health and hydrological dynamics. RA increases biodiversity and the ability of the land to perform key ecosystem functions, all without harming agricultural production or producer profits (Khangura et al., 2023). RA is not a specific farming practice, rather a goal to be achieved through a suite of practices like reduced tillage intensity, cover cropping or intercropping, crop rotation for increased crop diversity, and livestock integration in the cropping systems. These practices reduce or eliminate soil disturbance, cover the soil surface, maintain living roots in the soil profile, and enhance or incorporate biodiversity (LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018; Sanyal and Wolthuizen, 2021). Even some RA practices aim to strengthen the link between soil functions and plant performance through rhizophagy and phyllophagy, addressing the critical needs of sustainable agriculture under biotic and abiotic stress (Alves da Mata et al., 2025).
Figure 1. Ecosystem services that could be provided by regenerative agricultural practices. Practices like mixed cropping and managing tillage intensity, among others, result in diversification of floral and faunal species, cleaner air, improved food quality, and conservation of resources like water and soil.
While the principles behind various SHPs are researched, the knowledge gap lies in research of regenerative practices in dryland systems. No single RA or SHP is ‘one-size-fits-all,’ as any given agricultural system will have specific challenges that need to be addressed. In addition, studies typically focus on a limited number of locations, highlighting a significant gap in how existing research can be applied in real-world agroecosystems. These lands, comprising 45% of agricultural lands globally, are generally susceptible to degradation and desertification (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017). In the U.S., these productive dryland systems are located in the Midwest and Southwest. Because of the relative fragility of these soils and the significant impact they have on global food production, information on RA and SHPs regarding these soils is especially important. This article serves to address the knowledge gap by reviewing research surrounding the benefits and barriers to adoption of SHPs in dryland systems.
1.1 Dryland agriculture and desertification
The degradation of arable lands is a constant in the modern age (Montanarella et al., 2016; Prăvălie et al., 2021). The mechanized and high-input agricultural systems have historically been a destructive force, exploiting natural ecosystems, replacing them with degenerative systems (Cook et al., 2009; Taneja et al., 2018). Degenerative agriculture, conversely, may be defined as practices that actively degrade or exhaust the resources necessary for sustainable agricultural production, lacking the processes to replenish them. For example, tillage, although essential for certain crops to grow, breaks down soil aggregates, destroying the granular structure. However, often no measures are taken to improve aggregation or build structure after intensive tillage. This has synergized with environmental stressors and changes in land use to contribute to the desertification of many once-fertile croplands. Desertification has far-reaching consequences that impact societies in many ways. Climate change and carbon dynamics in the environment impact the intensity of desertification to a relatively large degree. These consequences can be highly detrimental to human health and economic development, and dryland systems are particularly vulnerable (Zhang et al., 2016; Mirzabaev et al., 2022).
Drylands, comprising arid, semi-arid, and dry-subhumid regions, currently comprise over 45% of the global land mass, according to current estimates (Chimwamurombe and Mataranyika, 2021). Dryland agriculture supports a large portion of the global population, as global drylands contain about 44% of agricultural lands, and more than 38% of the global population lives in these regions (Huang et al., 2016; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 2017). Additionally, approximately 25% of the global cropland area is used to produce goods that are exported, resulting in heightened rates of land degradation and the depletion of groundwater aquifers that indigenous desert-dwelling people may rely on (Martínez-Valderrama et al., 2024). This land degradation and further limitation of groundwater resources contribute to additional far-reaching impacts (Figure 2). For example, the Dust Bowl in the United States took place in the 1930s; this event was primarily caused by severe, widespread droughts coupled with eroded land surfaces due to failure in applying dryland agriculture methods (McDean, 1986). Ultimately, the degenerative agricultural practices that contributed to the onset of the Dust Bowl degraded much of the land in the Great Plains (Cowan et al., 2017). Dust Bowl-like symptoms persist in many active agricultural production regions, such as the Sahel Region in Africa, Southeastern Australia, and the southern US, especially the Desert Southwest. To avoid another Dust Bowl, changes to farming systems must extend beyond sustainability to include regenerative systems.
Figure 2. Major pathways linking desertification with climate change, as adapted from the IPCC report (Mirzabaev et al., 2019). Red arrows indicate a positive effect, green arrows indicate a negative effect, and grey arrows indicate an indeterminate effect (potentially both positive and negative). Solid arrows are direct, while dashed arrows have indirect effects.
Through many years of extensive research, several ideas to revive lands and regenerate lost productivity have been developed, and many of these ideas are already practiced by producers around the world. This article reviews and compiles existing knowledge on various aspects of RA, providing evidence on the need for soil health management in regenerating farming systems, with a special focus on dryland crop production systems.
2 Regenerative agriculture: soil health connection
Soil health (SH) is often synonymized with soil quality and is defined as the ability of a soil to function. Adequate measurable soil physical, chemical, and biological parameters are required for a soil to maintain productivity (NRCS, n.d.; Delgado and Gómez, 2016; European Union, 2022; European Commission, 2023). There is no rigid, single state of parameters that makes a healthy soil, as different regions may have differing goals for their soils to achieve, including variances in crop types that benefit from soils of different properties. For example, an organic matter-poor clayey soil may need to improve infiltration, while a carbon-limited, salt-affected desert soil may require better salt removal from the root zone to produce healthier and more productive crops. However, there are some common requirements in different regions that can improve soil health, such as enhanced soil biological activity and resilient soil aggregates (Maharjan et al., 2024). For soils to perform functions such as assisting in plant growth and reducing nutrient loss, an adequate amount of soil organic matter, a stable soil structure, and microbial biodiversity are necessary, and most RA practices support these attributes (Khangura et al., 2023).
Intensive agricultural practices with high levels of chemical inputs and monocropping have degraded soil health, lowering soil functionality (Zhang et al., 2024). RA, in contrast, does not incorporate intensive, degenerative practices like monocropping, fallowing, and intensive tilling of productive soils suppress soil microbial diversity and restrict community function by limiting plant-microbe interactions (Karpouzas et al., 2004). Scientists around the world agree that soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen (N) levels, microbial diversity and population, and soil aggregation are essential for increasing nutrient cycling and soil hydrological properties (Roper et al., 2017; Chu et al., 2019). These studies are often based on one of two general approaches: a reductionist approach or an integrated approach. Identifying which soil parameters are limiting SH functions the most is known as a reductionist approach, while the integrated approach considers new parameters synthesized from interactions of the aforementioned parameters (Kibblewhite et al., 2008). However, no single soil health property has been identified as being the primary driver of SH and function. Until now, reductionist approaches have been well reviewed and extensively discussed, but not enough work has been done towards the integrated approaches (Harris et al., 2015).
RA in practice is a synthesis of various activities that promote soil health by improving measured soil health parameters, best researched by an integrated approach. For example, cover cropping to enhance biodiversity in an agricultural system may be accompanied by reduced tillage intensity and livestock integration, as all of these practices can improve soil biodiversity and soil nutrient content. These practices are highly dependent on the current soil health and quality status. Therefore, it can be suggested that the approaches to RA should be highly specific to each farm and vary between land managers to meet the unique needs and resources available on each farm. However, there are some common underlying principles that remain true across regenerative farms.
Soil health principles and RA principles align in several key areas, like increasing farm revenue through increasing soil carbon (C), efficient use of water and nutrients, and environmental safety. For soil health practices (SHPs), this involves concepts of conservation agriculture, which focuses on significantly reducing or eliminating intensive soil disturbances like tillage, keeping the ground covered with plant residues or cover crops (CC) or perennial crops, including diversity through the use of extended crop rotations and cover crops, maintaining living roots as much as possible, and integrating livestock into the crop systems (Gliessman, 2020; Kassam et al., 2022). Some of these practices are more viable than others in dryland and arid cropping systems, as farmers in arid climates tend to rely on tillage to improve surface irrigation efficiency, prepare fine seedbeds for small-seeded crops of vegetables and other specialty crops, and increase nutrient availability by breaking compacted soil profiles, ultimately improving soil physical and chemical properties in the short term (Angon et al., 2023). Regardless, the targeted benefits from practicing RA are primarily increasing SOC and biodiversity, serving multiple ecosystem functions, including climate change mitigation and reducing gaseous loss of synthetic nutrients, such as nitrogen and sulfur (Schreefel et al., 2020; Sher et al., 2024).
Soil organic matter (SOM) is considered to be a reservoir of essential plant nutrients. Due to its high cation and anion exchange capacities and soil pH-buffer potentials, SOM greatly influences nutrient availability to plants (McCauley et al., 2009). Additionally, SOM supports soil biology and contributes to structural integrity, impacting overall SH (Hatano et al., 2024; Kabato et al., 2025). Soil organic carbon (SOC) is the carbon fraction of SOM and is one of the primary indicators of SH, along with other passive indicators like permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and other fractions of SOC (Christy et al., 2023; Hu et al., 2023; Parvej et al., 2025). In dryland systems, the inorganic carbon fractions of the soil, including carbonate and bicarbonate, also influence SH, often having an adverse effect on crop production (Fernández-Ugalde et al., 2011). The RA systems aim to improve SOC and SOM levels by reducing soil crusting, the risk of subsequent erosion, and impacting soil compaction through improved soil structure and support for beneficial soil biogeochemical processes, which are fundamental criteria for healthy soil (Meena et al., 2015). SOC improves the biodiversity, nutrient and water availability in any farming system; just 1% OM has a water holding capacity of around 2100 L ha-1 (Bryant, 2015; Verma et al., 2015; Lal, 2016), while lack of SOM can cause water stress through drought, flooding, and temperature extremes (Burke et al., 2010; Follett et al., 2015). Maintaining or improving SOM and SOC status towards a healthier soil is thus one of the primary goals of RA; more investments in SH are required to continue building soil carbon levels (Sanderman et al., 2017).
Living communities in soil, known as soil biota, influence the majority of soil functions, actively or passively (Sanyal et al., 2021). These biota need nourishment to keep a soil healthy, and acquire such nourishment by decomposing organic materials and transforming major elements, completing elemental cycles such as C, N, phosphorus (P), and sulfur (S) cycles (Sahu et al., 2017; He et al., 2025). Microbes contribute significantly to building soil aggregates to form improved soil structure by producing extracellular polymers (Peng et al., 2025). For example, vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae significantly improve soil aggregation through the secretion of known metabolites (Rahman et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2019). In dryland regions, soil aggregation is often lacking due to the extensive tillage required to grow multiple crops under irrigation and a lack of SOC retention due to extreme temperatures, coupled with minimal adoption of RA practices (Álvaro-Fuentes et al., 2008).
Farm soils generally house a large population of diverse microorganisms. A rhizosphere can contain ~109-1012 (1 billion to 1 trillion) culturable cells and ~104 (10,000) microbial species per gram of soil (Berendsen et al., 2012; Saleem et al., 2019). Biodiversity is essential in the functioning of a healthy ecosystem, and losing biodiversity can be incredibly damaging to cropping systems, as rebuilding biodiversity to historical levels can take centuries (Kirchner and Well, 2000). Therefore, measures must be taken not only to stop the destruction of biodiversity but also to build more biodiversity, aiming for historic levels, improving soil health following RA approaches.
3 Major soil health practices
Agronomic practices that have been shown to improve SH are generally considered soil health practices (SHPs). The most common SHPs are CC, conservation tillage (minimum tillage, MT or no-tillage, NT), diverse crop rotations, and livestock integration (Carlisle, 2016). Where identification of effective SHPs is important, it is also important to consider adoption rates of these practices. Though reliable estimates of adoption rates for some practices are generally unknown, some RA practices like tillage and cover cropping (illustrated in Figure 3) have usage rates accounted for in the USDA Census of Agriculture data (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2024). Adoption rates are influenced by several factors, which can be categorized as agronomic, financial, land tenure, public policy, access to information and knowledge, community perceptions and aesthetics, demographic factors, and non-economic motives (Carlisle, 2016). A significant motivation, however, comes from farmers’ interests in building up a healthy soil, rich in carbon, microbial diversity, and nutrients, with additional benefits of weed control and reduced soil compaction (Sackett, 2013; Mine et al., 2014). These relatively broad categories are indicative of the variable nature of adoption practices amongst farmers who may have more specific goals in mind. For example, more recent studies mentioned trapping soluble nutrients to avoid environmental pollution (e.g., nitrate pollution) and managing herbicide-resistant weeds are also considered while adopting SHPs (Long et al., 2013; Arbuckle and Lasley, 2015). Individual RA practices may have certain benefits or deficits that they may offer to farmers, as Carlisle (2015) reported that farmers enjoyed the benefits of CC on their lands as they benefited from reduced nutrient needs for optimum cash crop yields and crop rotations provided additional economic stability (Carlisle, 2015; CTIC, 2015). But Baradi (2005) pointed out clearly that farmers adopted NT only when NT provided more economic benefits than other tillage practices. However, information on efficient methods to integrate SHPs in a farm profitably is still lacking because access to technical knowledge and information helps farmers successfully practice soil health on their land, whether owned or rented (Miller et al., 2012; CTIC, 2015). Therefore, building a SH community is very important, so that stakeholders can easily share ideas and information on SHP, their techniques, and benefits, which is essential for enhanced adoption of SHP.
Figure 3. Acres of land used for tillage and cover cropping practices in 2022 relative to 2017 according to the USDA Agricultural Census. There has been a rise in total acreage used for reduced tillage and cover cropping between the two timepoints. The change becomes more pronounced when noting a 2.2% decline in total harvested acreage between the timepoints. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2024). Table 47. Land Use Practices: 2022 and 2017 (2022 Census of Agriculture – Volume 1, Chapter 1, United States Data). United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_047_047.pdf.
3.1 Soil tillage
Tilling the soil has been a practice since the beginning of agriculture and as crop productivity intensified, conventional tillage (CT) decreased crop residues on the ground, degraded the physical structure of the soil, and decreased soil microbial populations (Kaurin et al., 2018; Nunes et al., 2020). Reduction in tillage has been known to have benefits on soil health and ecosystem services, including lower rates of soil degradation, better aggregation, and retention of soil organic matter (Figure 4). CT is also associated with increased risk of erosion. This erosion is a rate multiplying factor of desertification, causing nutrient loss from the soil, surface water pollution, decreased SOM, and water infiltration, and increases soil compaction (Bescansa et al., 2006; Hevia et al., 2007).
Figure 4. Conservation tillage practices, including NT and reduction in tillage intensity, leave additional crop residues on the soil surface and reduce mechanical soil degradation. In doing so, the remaining residues enhance microbial activity and improve soil stability and aggregation. This also improves soil water dynamics in the soil by increasing rates of penetration and infiltration into the soil and reducing rates of evaporation.
The multitude of benefits gained from minimized soil disturbance, on the other hand, has been reported extensively in the last few decades. NT was reported to consume 56% less energy and reduce carbon footprint by 39% when compared with CT under a rice (Oryza sativa L.) -corn system; this also lowered nitrous oxide emissions by 20% (Lal et al., 2019). Strip Tillage (ST) improved physical soil health properties such as soil aggregate stability (Pieper et al., 2015), and Nunes et al. (2019) found that long term NT improved water stable aggregates and infiltration rates over continuous CT. Wet aggregate stability (WAS), AWC, infiltration rate, and water use efficiency (WUE) were significantly greater, along with lower bulk densities, with NT over CT (Panday et al., 2008; Kuotsu et al., 2014; Nunes et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2019). Both NT and ST have been shown to enhance soil microbial abundance and nutrient availability relative to CT, increased compaction in CT; however, NT and ST had more root-feeding nematodes (Khasawneh and Othman, 2020). ST improved SH parameters such as soil aggregate stability, potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN), active soil carbon (also known as POXC), and microbial activity, irrespective of nitrate level in soil (Pieper et al., 2015).
Intensity of tillage maintains a negative correlation with SOM as well. In a standard crop production system under long-term research studies, NT did not increase SOC or SOM (Luo et al., 2010; Olson, 2013); it simply stopped or slowed the loss. Other studies have reported that MT and NT, if done correctly (i.e., couple tillage practices with organic matter inputs, maintain practices over several years), can maintain higher levels of SOM (Jaziri et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2006). Nunes et al. (2019) stated that long term NT resulted in higher levels of SOM, soil protein, soil respiration, and infiltration rates. Particulate organic matter C (POM-C) was decreased when the soil was conventionally tilled (chisel plowed), while NT with no corn stover removal had higher POM-C and NT with CC had increased PMN (Obrycki et al., 2018). MT with residue greatly increased SOC and macronutrients (Prasad et al., 2016). With organic mulch [pine (Pinus) needles], NT increased SOC and had higher grain yield (Pal and Mahajan, 2017). Overall, long term NT improved total N, phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and (Zn) when compared to CT, with and without organic mulch (Pal and Mahajan, 2017; Lal et al., 2019; Nunes et al., 2019). The increased concentrations of microbial- and plant-available nutrients led to an improvement in soil fertility.
With increased physical and microbial health of soil and increased levels of nutrients when tillage is reduced over long-term periods, significant yield benefits can be found as well. MT has been shown to increase crop yields by 5–22% compared to CT, a difference that was especially pronounced among summer crops such as corn or soybean (Prasad et al., 2016). Green cobs of summer corn (maize) and field pea seed yield were higher under NT-ridge and furrow (RF) and NT-raised bed (RB) than CT-RF (Yadav et al., 2015). Under NT, (Chaudhary et al., 2015) observed higher wheat yield and (Dixit et al., 2015) observed higher sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) fodder. Li et al. (2023) reported soil health improvements in crop rotation systems across various tillage intensities; decreased tillage intensity improved soil moisture, total N, SOC, and active carbon while reducing pH, which all align with the soil health goals in many arid production systems.
Carbon sequestration due to NT is often a slow and gradual process, occurring over several years (Don et al., 2024; Villat and Nicholas, 2024; Xiang et al., 2024). Multiple years of carbon gains can be lost through one pass of tillage (Wade et al., 2022). The amount of carbon sequestered varies by depth, though it is typically higher over long periods of time in NT systems relative to CT. Angon et al. (2023) reported that the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil profile in NT systems was consistently higher than in CT systems at all depth ranges, except for the 10–20 cm range. With such data available, the question then becomes why tillage practices are continued despite these potential benefits. Reports of reduced yield in the initial years of switching to MT or NT persist, despite the advantages it provides, such as reduced farm input costs, increased availability of soil moisture, enhanced SOC, and improved soil physical properties (Brouder and Gomez-Macpherson, 2014). As Lal et al. (2019) reported, in the initial 3 years, a 10-15% yield penalty was observed under NT in a rice-corn cropping system, although soil properties improved. However, most reported cases of reduced yield associated with MT or NT have been researched through reductionist approaches, which do not consider the presence or lack of other practices that may impact yield losses (Pittelkow et al., 2015). Additionally, farmers in arid and semi-arid environments are often faced with soils that are tough, compacted, and otherwise could have significant yield benefits from tilling the fields.
Resources like essential nutrients are otherwise not readily accessible without breaking up soil aggregates and increasing aeration and water infiltration. These resources are necessary to be maintained throughout the soil profile, as the microbiota that service the areas around the plant root systems called rhizosphere or rhizoplane, require these nutrients for their own functions (Bonilla and Bolaños, 2009). Tilling is a way for farmers to incorporate these necessary nutrients more deeply into the soil profile, despite the deficits the actions themselves may cause. Without doing so, there is a fear that there will be a decrease in crop yield, which may result in decreased profits and reduced food availability. Despite this fear, however, conservation tillage is employed in the majority of corn, wheat, and soybean fields in the US (Rosenberg and Wallander, 2022). This accounts for a 20% increase in NT in corn systems between 2001 and 2021, and a 25% increase in wheat systems between 2004 and 2017. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2022) Census of Agriculture, reduced tillage and NT practices were applied to over 65% of farmland by acre in selected southern states, with the largest rates of NT and conservation till practices taking place in Tennessee, Maryland, and Virginia (Menard and Duncan, 2024). According to the same census, an additional 756,000 acres of US croplands implemented NT between 2017 and 2022, alongside decreases in CT and conservation tillage practices (Pratt, 2024), indicating a continued rise in the adoption of practices involving a reduction in tillage intensity.
3.2 Cover crops
Cover crops provide a wide variety of agroecosystem services (Figure 5). Continuous protection of the soil surface is another major step towards RA through improved SH (Franzluebbers and Stuedemann, 2008). Leaving soil surfaces bare (fallow) is a common practice to maintain sufficient moisture for the next cash crop (Phiri et al., 2001; Kar and Kumar, 2009), but in many areas, this may not have the intended effects. Fallow soils have increased susceptibility to erosion, moisture loss, and can more easily contribute to environmental pollution through runoff of fertile soils and leaching of soluble nutrients and chemicals. Adoption of CC practices often faces barriers like the cost of inputs, including additional plant seeds and fertilizers, plus the costs of labor and equipment. However, adoption of cover cropping amongst farmers in the US Southwest may have additional barriers. As water is especially scarce in the region, the additional water costs dissuade many from utilizing this strategy to its fullest potential. That being said, CC are shown to have benefits on soil moisture dynamics (Wells et al., 2014; Acharya et al., 2019).
Figure 5. Cover cropping (CC) improves ecosystem biodiversity while providing a physical barrier between fallow soil and wind or water that can increase rates of soil degradation. Implementing CC also increases competition for weeds, acting as a weed control tool. Different CC species can perform different functions and provide homes for different beneficial microbial communities; this increased microbial diversity allows for the efficient cycling of different nutrients, including the fixing of atmospheric nitrogen sources by rhizobia.
One of the major utilities of cover cropping is the catch and release of nutrients. As live roots of CC take up soluble nutrients from the soil, they save a large portion of labile nutrient pools in their biomass from being lost when a cash crop is absent; therefore, these nutrients are kept in the soil system (Lacey and Armstrong, 2015; Cooper et al., 2017). A bare soil is without any protective shield against wind and water erosion that can potentially diminish nutrient-rich topsoil; this nutrient rich soil can eventually end up in surface water, polluting the environment (Chen et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2019). Additionally, soils without living roots can potentially lose large amounts of soluble nutrients (e.g., nitrates, sulfates) and other chemical components, which ultimately may add to environmental pollution through runoff and leaching (Szott et al., 1999; Henryson et al., 2020). CC biomass adds an extra layer of protection against runoff and conserves nutrient-rich topsoil, reducing nutrient loads that can reach water bodies (Joyce et al., 2002; Kaye and Quemada, 2017).
Oat (Avena sativa) and rye (Secale cereale L.) were shown to decrease nitrate concentrations in the drainage water by 26% and 48%, respectively (Kaspar et al., 2012). Additionally, legume CC species can fix atmospheric N to be readily available for subsequent cash crops, thus reducing N fertilizer needs, improving soil fertility and environmental quality (Creamer et al., 2019). Hairy vetch (Vicia villosa L.) and other legume cover crops such as soybeans (Glycine max), sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), and winter peas can fix atmospheric N; see Table 1 (Lu et al., 2000; CTIC and SARE, 2013). Additionally, when combined with NT, CC increased water extractable organic nitrogen (WEON), and total N status (Mitchell et al., 2017). These reports prove the ability of CC to improve soil fertility in a regenerative way. Therefore, to revive soil systems, adequate surface cover must be maintained as much as possible to keep nutrients in the soil profile.
Table 1. Ranges of nitrogen fixation by popular legume cover crop species as reported in peer-reviewed literature.
It has been reported that soil moisture is minimally impacted by winter CC (DeVincentis et al., 2022). Studies reported that CC increased soil aggregation and water infiltration rates (Qi and Helmers, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2017). Ghimire et al. (2019) found that soil water content (SWC) was lower under spring-planted CC than fallow at CC-termination, but SWC was greater under CC than fallow at wheat (irrigated) planting in October in a wheat-fallow system. These reports strengthen the arguments on soil physical-chemical-biological health management using the CC as a potential tool.
Cover crops can play a crucial role in sequestering carbon and enhancing biodiversity in agroecosystems (Novara et al., 2019; Jian et al., 2020). Studies proved that CC treatment had higher SOC and crop yield than no-cover (NC) (Chahal and Van Eerd, 2018), and when CC were treated with 120–130 kg N ha-1 yr-1, more SOC was produced than CC without N treatment and fields left to fallow (Sainju et al., 2006). In a meta-analysis conducted in Germany, the data from 37 different sites predicted that CC use could result in 16.7 ± 1.5 Mg C ha-1 year-1 after 155 years (Poeplau and Don, 2015). A combination of NT and CC further increased water extractable organic carbon (WEOC) and soil C content (Mitchell et al., 2017). Additionally, after reviewing previous studies on the efficacy of CC, Qiu et al. (2024) found that utilizing CC in combination with other climate-smart practices, such as the addition of organic fertilizers, improved the yield of the cash crop while providing a decrease in methane emissions of over 70%.
Among other RA and SH benefits from CC use, enhancing biodiversity, integrating livestock, and insect pest-weed-disease suppression are well reported. Farmers can grow several species of CC together with cash crops, which can boost the diversity on a farm (Elhakeem et al., 2019). Earthworm populations, which can help turn nutrients in the soils and support plant growth (Yadav and Singh, 2023), were reported to be 1.2 times higher under rye CC treatments containing a biomass of 1.4 times that of NC (Korucu et al., 2018). In a recent report from South Dakota, CC plots had twice the earthworm population compared to neighboring plots with NC (Sanyal et al., 2020). Regarding microbial biodiversity, CC under NT systems had 100 times higher microbial population compared to the conventional system without CC (Zablotowicz et al., 2007). Oats (Avena sativa L.) and cereal rye favored vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae (VAM), while (Wegner et al., 2018) found higher fungal:bacterial ratios under CC compared to NC. CC improved Nitrosomonas europaea and Azotobacter vinelandii abundance, which helps in N cycling (Scavo et al., 2020). (Sanyal et al., 2021) reported that in a cover crop mix with equal proportions of grass and broadleaf species (balanced carbon-nitrogen ratio), influenced more microbial diversity than a broadleaf-dominant (comparatively low C:N) or a grass-dominant (comparatively high C:N) CC mix.
While barriers of additional costs persist, deterring some growers from implementing CC in their own fields, there are some economic benefits. Livestock can be integrated into the farming system to avail additional benefits from manure and savings on feed costs if CC species are chosen for grazing (Franzluebbers and Stuedemann 2008; Milchunas et al., 2011). CC mixes (more than one CC species grown together) can be used as a full season forage for livestock efficiently, enhancing the economic return of the farm (Alary et al., 2016). It is well documented that CC can suppress weeds, diseases, and pests, and producers can save money for crop protection, ultimately maintaining a healthier soil through natural pest control and improving crop productivity and environment health in the process (Reddy, 2016; Jian et al., 2020). Many CC species have the ability to control weeds through competition, allelopathic effects, and reduction in weed seed germination (Masilionyte et al., 2017). Trifolium subterraneum L. as CC and dead mulch incorporation reduced the weed seed bank in the soil and reduced weed biodiversity (Scavo et al., 2020). There are numerous reports where various CC mixes reduced harmful pests like pest arthropods and fungal pathogens (Hoorman, 2009; González-Ruiz et al., 2023; Hagerty et al., 2024). CC residues have been reported to break pest and disease cycles by providing a place for predatory insects to live and overwinter, potentially preventing pest insects from doing damage (Snapp et al., 2005).
Although CC does not always provide a direct profit return in terms of increased yield, CC can stabilize yields over time, especially under extreme weather conditions (Bergtold et al., 2005; Snapp et al., 2005). Reports from an investigative study by CTIC and SARE (2013) mentioned that under extreme drought stress conditions, the areas with CC yielded 0.69 and 0.38 Mg ha-1 higher for corn and soybean, respectively. The most prominent indirect benefits are atmospheric N fixation into the soil and SOM build-up in the soil. A study estimated that CC benefitted the farm between $50.59 ha-1 from oilseed radish (Raphanus sativus L.) and $108.42 ha-1 from crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) when it came to SOM benefits (Pratt et al., 2014). Several other studies reported an estimated grain yield increase of 10% for corn with CC (CTIC and SARE, 2013), 12% for soybeans with CC (CTIC and SARE, 2013), 18-54% for winter wheat, and 0-25% for sorghum with sunn hemp as CC (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2012; Bergtold et al., 2019).
Despite the reported benefits of CC, the additional fieldwork, lack of technical knowledge, and added expense without immediate yield benefits may deter farmers from adopting CC on their farms. The inconsistency in yield outcomes is true for all RA practices including CC (Table 2). Additionally, with the incorporation of certain CC species, specifically root crops, there comes added soil disturbance with harvesting. This added disturbance can lead to soil erosion rates of 22 Mg ha-1 harvest-1 (Kuhwald et al., 2022). With many adoption barriers in mind, CC usage continues to rise in the US. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2022) Census of Agriculture indicates that CCs were planted on over 4.7% of total US cropland, representing a 17% increase in usage since 2017. According to the same census, there is significant variance in implementation of CCs by location, as though Maryland has the highest usage rates of CCs, Texas saw a 50% increase by acre coverage in the same time period. Most studies report similar yields or increased yields from cash crops grown with CC, with few studies reporting yield losses (Schlegel and Havlin, 1997; Uchino et al., 2009; Thapa et al., 2021). CC also interferes with the cash crop harvesting and planting as termination and incorporation of CC have been posing serious concerns that have been mentioned in numerous published literature (Miller et al., 2012; CTIC, 2015). Depletion of soil moisture required for germination of the cash crops is also a widespread concern, especially in areas with scant precipitation (Sackett, 2013; CTIC, 2015). Many farms also lack the equipment required to establish and/or terminate CC (Arbuckle, 2012; Roesch-McNally et al., 2018). Significant research is needed to strategize management of CC or to boost its adoption as a tool to improve SH and towards RA, combating these barriers, especially in dryland systems like the US Southwest.
Table 2. A list of yield outcomes from different regenerative practices discussed in this review.
3.3 Crop diversity and rotation
Crop diversification is another central principle of RA systems (NRCS, 2009). Compared to monocropping systems, a diversified cropping system has several advantages relating to soil health, nutrient cycling, and water dynamics (Figure 6). As different crop types utilize different amounts of specific soil nutrients and other resources, one or two crops grown on the same piece of land over time can exploit those resources; the depletion of these nonrenewable soil resources is inherently unsustainable for crop production (Izlar, 2018). When the production of different crop types is not always feasible in a growing season, a rotational gap of three to four years can have beneficial effects (Van Eerd et al., 2014). Diverse crop rotations not only improve SOC, N and general SH, but they can also suppress weed infestation and break disease and pest life cycles (Liebman and Dyck, 2009; Lin, 2011).
Figure 6. Increased diversification of crop species in a growing system allows for a diversification of microbial species. This results in increased rates of nutrient cycling and the fixing of atmospheric nitrogen which increases overall soil fertility. Larger communities of microbes and the release of exudates by plant root systems also improve soil structure and increase rates of soil aggregation, allowing for improved water dynamics and an improved ability for the soil to act as a carbon sink.
While it may not be possible to grow several crops in the same growing season everywhere, in many areas of the world, it is possible to either plant two crops at the same time (intercropping) or in a single year (double-cropping) (Martin-Guay et al., 2018; Hampf et al., 2020). In spite of several challenges reported with double or intercropping like increasing water competition due to higher crop density (Hu et al., 2025), crop diversity and soil microbial community structure can be improved in a way that is beneficial for the entire ecosystem, additionally benefiting SOM status, soil structure, and overall SH (Nyawade et al., 2019; Zaeem et al., 2019). For example, turnips (Brassica rapa subsp. rapa) and radishes (Raphanus sativus L.) make large tubers that can break up topsoil, reducing compaction; they can also hold nutrients in the tubers over winter growing seasons (Gruver et al., 2014). Cereal rye can have expansive fibrous root systems that can grow several feet downwards in the soil profile to bring nutrients upwards in the soil profile and break up layers of compacted soil (Haynes and Beare, 1997).
Crop diversification can also be incorporated by growing CC or by adding a perennial crop to the rotation and leaving it in the field for multiple years. (Agomoh et al., 2020) reasoned that 2-year and 3-year crop rotations were more effective in improving SH parameters than CC alone (red clover; Trifolium pretense L.), and crop yields were increased by 23-28% in rotated systems compared to monocultures. (Saleem et al., 2020) reported that competition among plant roots in a mix of CC improved soil C storage, soil aggregation, and nutrient status. While annual cropping systems with CC increased POXC and SOM compared to continuous corn, a perennial polyculture had higher mineralizable C and POXC than annual cropping systems (Sprunger et al., 2020). Diversification of crop production systems help soils reach a more natural, buffered state, which gives the opportunity for soils to begin rebuilding their SOM levels and general SH; this subsequently keeps more nutrients and C in the field, preventing them from ending up in the wider environment, including water bodies (Williams et al., 2005; Sprunger et al., 2020).
An important aspect of growing diverse crops is that different plant species flower at different times of the year, which gives pollinators more opportunity throughout the growing season to gather pollen and build their communities (Aizen et al., 2019). Above all, crop rotation introduces and stabilizes microbial diversity and functional gene diversity in the soil that regulates nutrient dynamics that makes the production system healthy, sustainable, and regenerative (Lupwayi et al., 1998; Williams et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2024; Wei et al., 2023). However, the unavailability of the proper crop types, the complexity of the knowledge needed for successful practice, the ability to market (sell) diverse crops, and farm prices, along with government policies, hinder the adoption of crop diversification worldwide (Behera et al., 2007; Lin, 2011; Lienhard et al., 2020).
3.4 Crop-livestock integration
Livestock integration is a time-consuming, labor-intensive, and economically expensive SHP. The benefits of livestock can be multidimensional, and with proper management (Figure 7), livestock incorporation can be worth the time and money invested (Russelle et al., 2007). An important aspect about livestock integration from a SH perspective is the soil nutrient cycling aided by the processing of plant material in the rumen of the livestock and the subsequent addition of manure and other excreta to the soil; these excreta are organic materials enriched in carbon and nutrients (Chadwick et al., 2015; Ozbayram et al., 2018). During the winter months in colder climates, when a large portion of global agricultural lands are frozen and decomposition of plant materials in the soil has ceased, it can continue inside the rumen. While grazing, animals feed on some specific parts of growing plants without killing them, triggering above and below ground plant growth (Olson and Richards, 2016). Additionally, in a native grassland, no single species of plant was able to dominate as large herds moved through the grasslands and grazed on all plants irrespective of palatability (Liu et al., 2013). This is significantly different than how most grazing activities are managed in present times, resulting in limited plant diversity in modern systems. Therefore, adding livestock to the production system may allow SH to begin to regenerate to a pre-farmed state, and allow the biology above the soil to do the same (Zaralis and Padel, 2017).
Figure 7. Integrating livestock into a growing system increases rates of carbon cycling by allowing for the efficient degradation of complex organic compounds in the livestock rumens. This provides high quality feed for the livestock and returns valuable nutrients to the soil through livestock excreta, improving soil carbon stocks. The decomposing plant materials and excreta in the soil provides food sources for microbial communities, allowing for increased rates of nutrient cycling within the soil.
An integrated crop-livestock system (ICLS) would potentially improve soil microbial biomass compared to monocultures of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) or faba (fava) bean (Vicia faba) (Acosta-Martínez et al., 2004; Asante et al., 2018). When combined with diverse crop rotations, producers open themselves to the opportunity of having livestock in their fields, even if it is only once every several years. Short-season crops followed by CC make for a great environment to graze many different livestock species. (Franzluebbers and Stuedemann, 2014) suggested that livestock grazing on winter CC can stabilize and secure farm production, while NT amplified positive effects towards crop production, irrespective of CC species. Adding perennial crops to the rotation allows for full season grazing opportunities and hay production capabilities on farmland. Perennials are great tools for RA because they have deeper root systems than most annual crops (Lodge and Murphy, 2006). The deep root systems allow for deeper water infiltration, increased nutrient scavenging ability, and uptake of subsurface water (Zhang et al., 2011; Rasmussen et al., 2020). Clearly, advantages from perennial crops are multifaceted; reduced soil erosion (Cosentino et al., 2015), minimized nutrient leaching (Hussain et al., 2019), improved C sequestration (Toensmeier et al., 2020), pest control (Tschumi et al., 2016), and a continuous food source and habitat for biological life (Brady, 2007).
The barriers to the adoption of livestock integration are predominantly economic, as livestock integration can be very expensive in the initial investments with animals, fencing, and equipment (Jordon et al., 2023). However, as the global population and wealth increase, the demand for meat and animal products will increase. However, many growers in semi-arid regions have expressed concerns about disease outbreaks among livestock populations, as well as the water requirements of these animals (Musara et al., 2021). Therefore, costs must be assessed before growers can implement crop-livestock integration.
4 Conclusion
The current path that many farming systems are taking is unsustainable and inherently degenerative, necessitating change. Although slow, the outlook for the future of RA globally is generally favorable. RA practices are experiencing a growth rate of 16.1% annually, and the RA market is projected to reach $17.4 billion USD by 2029 (The Business Research Company, 2025). Widespread adoption of RA practices is needed to assist in the securing and repairing of resources depleted by intensive agricultural systems, as RA practices offer several benefits, outlined in Figure 8. Decreased tillage prevents soil erosion, and cover cropping helps maintain vital nutrients in the soil. An integration of RA and SHPs decreases rates of desertification and nutrient pollution in local waterways, ultimately preventing expenses associated with combating environmental pollution and eutrophication. Crop diversification in the short term could add expenses for farmers, but may add a safety net to farms during years when other crop prices are low. At the same time, these practices would significantly improve SH and water quality. Livestock integration can benefit soil health by aiding in the cycling of nutrients and increasing the sequestration rates of organic carbon, all while providing additional value through the supplementation of feed for livestock that contribute to feeding populations. The land required for raising additional animals will become increasingly scarce, and therefore, the integration of livestock on existing croplands will be a decision that supports RA practices. The primary objectives of the current agricultural systems are to feed 9 billion people worldwide by 2050 (Fouilleux et al., 2017; Bahar et al., 2020). While RA comprises known methods of improving resources while producing crops, these methods often have varied success based on crop types, geographical variables, and co-integration of additional practices. More research is needed to investigate not only effective RA techniques and SHPs for different climate and soil types, but also for various crop types and irrigation regimes.
Figure 8. A summation of the benefits timeline of regenerative agricultural (RA) practices at various scales. In the short term, rates of carbon sequestration and species diversity are increased, ultimately increasing soil fertility by increasing rates of nutrient cycling within the soil. In the medium term, foods with high nutrient density can be produced sustainably while improving the health of the surrounding ecosystem and reducing rates of nutrient pollution and related events. In the long term, food security and the reversing of desertification can improve the lives of communities around the globe.
The available studies in this review highlight a need for additional research regarding overcoming barriers to adopting RA practices, as well as additional research integrating RA and SHPs to show the potential benefits of RA in dryland systems. Additional data to support these integrated approaches can improve adoption rates of RA practices, ultimately increasing the numbers of practical pathways forward. Future research should focus on how the current costs and effects are undermining the ability of the food systems to produce sustainably. Researchers should ensure that longer temporal scales are included in their study designs, as in most cases, SH and nutrient losses are gradual to a point where it is difficult to measure in a single year. In doing so, long-term agricultural production systems will be able to thrive within the dryland ecosystems in which they are located.
Author contributions
JA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JK: Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. DK: Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. AB: Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. We used generative AI to find research articles supplementary to Google Scholar.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Acharya B. S., Dodla S., Gaston L. A., Darapuneni M., Wang J. J., Sepat S., et al. (2019). Winter cover crops effect on soil moisture and soybean growth and yield under different tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res. 195, 104430. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104430
Acosta-Martínez V., Zobeck T. M., and Allen V. (2004). Soil microbial, chemical and physical properties in continuous cotton and integrated crop-livestock systems. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 68, 1875–1884. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2004.1875
Agomoh I. V., Drury C. F., Phillips L. A., Reynolds W. D., and Yang X. (2020). Increasing crop diversity in wheat rotations increases yields but decreases soil health. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 84, 170–181. doi: 10.1002/saj2.20000
Agomoh I. V., Drury C. F., Yang X., Phillips L. A., and Reynolds W. D. (2021). Crop rotation enhances soybean yields and soil health indicators. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 85, 1185–1195. doi: 10.1002/saj2.20241
Aizen M. A., Aguiar S., Biesmeijer J. C., Garibaldi L. A., Inouye D. W., Jung C., et al. (2019). Global agricultural productivity is threatened by increasing pollinator dependence without a parallel increase in crop diversification. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 3516–3527. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14736
Alary V., Corbeels M., Affholder F., Alvarez S., Soria A., Valadares Xavier J. H., et al. (2016). Economic assessment of conservation agriculture options in mixed crop-livestock systems in Brazil using farm modelling. Agric. Syst. 144, 33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.01.008
Alvarez R., Steinbach H. S., and De Paepe J. L. (2017). Cover crop effects on soils and subsequent crops in the pampas: A meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 170, 53–65. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2017.03.005
Álvaro-Fuentes J., Arrúe J. L., Gracia R., and López M. V. (2008). Tillage and cropping intensification effects on soil aggregation: Temporal dynamics and controlling factors under semiarid conditions. Geoderma 145, 390–396. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.04.005
Alves da Mata D., Batista da Silva T., Macena R. A., Oliveira V., de S., Porcino M. M., et al. (2025). The role of rhizophagy in nutrient uptake and agricultural sustainability. Diversitas J. 10, 517-526. doi: 10.48017/dj.v10i2.3242
Angon P. B., Anjum N., Akter M. M., Shreejana K. C., Suma R. P., and Jannat S. (2023). An overview of the impact of tillage and cropping systems on soil health in agricultural practices. Adv. Agric. 2023, 1–14. doi: 10.1155/2023/8861216
Arbuckle J. G. (2012). Attitudes Toward Cover Crops in Iowa: Benefits and Barriers (Ames, IA: Iowa State University).
Arbuckle J. G. and Lasley P. (2015). Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll 2014 Summary Report (Ames, IA: Iowa State University). 1–10.
Asante B. O., Villano R. A., Patrick I. W., and Battese G. E. (2018). Determinants of farm diversification in integrated crop-livestock farming systems in Ghana. Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 33, 131–149. doi: 10.1017/S1742170516000545
Azhar S. (2016). Colonial and Post-Colonial Origins of Agrarian Development : The Case of Two Punjabs Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Bahar N. H. A., Lo M., Sanjaya M., Van Vianen J., Alexander P., Ickowitz A., et al. (2020). Meeting the food security challenge for nine billion people in 2050: What impact on forests? Global Environ. Change 62, 102056. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102056
Balkcom K. S. and Reeves D. W. (2005). Sunn-hemp utilized as a legume cover crop for corn production. Agron. J. 97, 26–31. doi: 10.2134/agronj2005.0026
Baradi N. K. (2005). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Tillage Systems in Kansas. (Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University).
Behera U. K., Sharma A. R., and Mahapatra I. C. (2007). Crop diversification for efficient resource management in India: Problems, prospects and policy. J. Sustain. Agric. 30, 97–127. doi: 10.1300/J064v30n03_08
Berendsen R. L., Pieterse C. M. J., and Bakker P. A. H. M. (2012). The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 478–486. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001
Bergtold J. S., Ramsey S., Maddy L., and Williams J. R. (2019). A review of economic considerations for cover crops as a conservation practice. Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 34, 62–76. doi: 10.1017/S1742170517000278
Bergtold J. S., Terra J. A., Reeves D. W., Shaw J. N., Balkcom K. S., and Raper R. L. (2005). “Profitability and risk associated with alternative mixtures of high-residue cover crops,” in Proceedings of the 27th Southern Conservation Tillage Systems Conference. Florence, SC, USA: Clemson University 113–121.
Bescansa P., Imaz M. J., Virto I., Enrique A., and Hoogmoed W. B. (2006). Soil water retention as affected by tillage and residue management in semiarid Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 87, 19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2005.02.028
Blanco-Canqui H., Claassen M. M., and Presley D. R. (2012). Summer cover crops fix nitrogen, increase crop yield, and improve soil-crop relationships. Agron. J. 104, 137–147. doi: 10.2134/agronj2011.0240
Bourgeois B., Charles A., Van Eerd L. L., Tremblay N., Lynch D., Bourgeois G., et al (2022). Interactive effects between cover crop management and the environment modulate benefits to cash crop yields: a meta-analysis. Can. J. Plant Sci. 102, 656–678. doi: 10.1139/cjps-2021-0177
Bonilla I. and Bolaños L. (2009). Mineral nutrition for legume-rhizobia symbiosis: B, Ca, N, P, S, K, Fe, Mo, Co, and Ni: A review. In:Lichtfouse E. (eds), Organic Farming, Pest Control and Remediation of Soil Pollutants. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 1. Springer, Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9654-9_13
Bowles T. M., Mooshammer M., Socolar Y., Calderón F., Cavigelli M. A., Culman S. W., et al. (2020). Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth 2, 284–293. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.007
Brady S. J. (2007). Effects of Cropland Conservation Practices on Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Texas: Fort Worth).
Brouder S. M. and Gomez-Macpherson H. (2014). The impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder agricultural yields: A scoping review of the evidence. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 11–32. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.010
Bryant L. (2015). Organic matter can improve your soil’s water holding capacity. Natural Resources Defence Council. https://www.nrdc.org/bio/lara-bryant/organic-matter-can-improve-your-soils-water-holding-capacity (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Burke I. C., Yonker C. M., Parton W. J., Cole C. V., Schimel D. S., and Flach K. (2010). Texture, climate, and cultivation effects on soil organic matter content in U.S. Grassland soils. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 53, 800. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1989.03615995005300030029x
Carlisle L. (2016). Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health practices in the United States: a narrative review. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 583–613. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2016.1156596
Chadwick D., Wei J., Yan’an T., Guanghui Y., Qirong S., and Qing C. (2015). Improving manure nutrient management towards sustainable agricultural intensification in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 209, 34–46. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.025
Chahal I. and Van Eerd L. L. (2018). Evaluation of commercial soil health tests using a medium-term cover crop experiment in a humid, temperate climate. Plant Soil 427, 351–367. doi: 10.1007/s11104-018-3653-2
Chaudhary V. P., Gangwar B., and Shikha G. (2015). Effect of long-term conservation tillage on soil physical properties and soil health under rice-wheat cropping system in sub tropical India. AMA Agric. Mechanization Asia Afr. Latin America 46, 61–73.
Chen S. K., Liu C. W., and Chen Y. R. (2012). Assessing soil erosion in a terraced paddy field using experimental measurements and universal soil loss equation. Catena (Amst) 95, 131–141. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2012.02.013
Chimwamurombe P. M. and Mataranyika P. N. (2021). Factors influencing dryland agricultural productivity. J. Arid. Environ. 189, 104489. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2021.104489
Christy I., Moore A., Myrold D., and Kleber M. (2023). A mechanistic inquiry into the applicability of permanganate oxidizable carbon as a soil health indicator. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 87, 1083–1095. doi: 10.1002/saj2.20569
Chu M., Singh S., Walker F. R., Eash N. S., Buschermohle M. J., Duncan L. A., et al. (2019). Soil health and soil fertility assessment by the haney soil health test in an agricultural soil in West Tennessee. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 50, 1123–1131. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2019.1604731
Cook B. I., Miller R. L., and Seager R. (2009). Amplification of the North American “Dust Bowl” drought through human-induced land degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 4997–5001. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810200106
Cooper R. J., Hama-Aziz Z., Hiscock K. M., Lovett A. A., Dugdale S. J., Sünnenberg G., et al. (2017). Assessing the farm-scale impacts of cover crops and non-inversion tillage regimes on nutrient losses from an arable catchment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 237, 181–193. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.034
Cosentino S. L., Copani V., Scalici G., Scordia D., and Testa G. (2015). Soil erosion mitigation by perennial species under Mediterranean environment. Bioenergy Res. 8, 1538–1547. doi: 10.1007/s12155-015-9690-2
Cowan T., Hegerl G. C., Colfescu I., Bollasina M., Purich A., and Boschat G. (2017). Factors contributing to record-breaking heat waves over the great plains during the 1930s Dust Bowl. J. Clim. 30, 2437–2461. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0436.1
Creamer N. G., Bennett M. A., Stinner B. R., and Cardina J. (2019). A comparison of four processing tomato production systems differing in cover crop and chemical inputs. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 121, 559–568. doi: 10.21273/jashs.121.3.559
Cronin R. (2009). Natural resources and the development–environment dilemma. In Cronin R. and Pandya A. (Eds.), Exploiting natural resources: Growth, instability, and conflict in the Middle East and Asia (pp. 63–81) The Henry L. Stimson Center).
CTIC (2015). 2014–2015 COVER CROP SURVEY (West Lafayette, IN: Conservation Technology Information Center). doi: 10.1002/ejoc.201200111
CTIC and SARE (2013). Managing Cover Crops profitably. 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education).
Decker A. M., Clark A. J., Meisinger J. J., Mulford F. R., and McIntosh M. S. (1994). Legume cover crop contributions to no-tillage corn production. Agron. J. 86, 126–135. doi: 10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600010024x
Deines J. M., Guan K., Lopez B., Zhou Q., White C. S., Wang S., et al. (2023). Recent cover crop adoption is associated with small maize and soybean yield losses in the United States. Glob. Chang. Biol. 29, 794–807. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16489
Delgado A. and Gómez J. A. (2016). “The Soil. Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties,” in Principles of Agronomy for Sustainable Agriculture (Springer International Publishing, Cham), 15–26. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46116-8_2
DeVincentis A., Solis S. S., Rice S., Zaccaria D., Snyder R., Maskey M., et al. (2022). Impacts of winter cover cropping on soil moisture and evapotranspiration in California’s specialty crop fields may be minimal during winter months. California Agriculture 76 (1), 37–45. doi: 10.3733/ca.2022a0001
Dixit A. K., Kumar A. S., Rai A., and Kumar K. (2015). System productivity, profitability, nutrient uptake and soil health under tillage, nutrient and weed management in rainfed chickpea (Cicer arietinum)–fodder sorghum (Sorghum bicolour) cropping system. Indian J. Agron. 60, 205–211. doi: 10.59797/ija.v60i2.4463
Don A., Seidel F., Leifeld J., Kätterer T., Martin M., Pellerin S., et al. (2024). Carbon sequestration in soils and climate change mitigation—Definitions and pitfalls. Glob. Chang. Biol. 30. doi: 10.1111/gcb.16983
Dou S., Wang Z., Tong J., Shang Z., Deng A., Song Z., et al. (2024). Strip tillage promotes crop yield in comparison with no tillage based on a meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 240, 106085. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2024.106085
Elhakeem A., van der Werf W., Ajal J., Lucà D., Claus S., Vico R. A., et al. (2019). Cover crop mixtures result in a positive net biodiversity effect irrespective of seeding configuration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 285. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106627
European Commission (2023). Soil monitoring law. Available online at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/soil-health/soil-health_en (Accessed January 22, 2026).
European Union (2022). Soil Health Law Legal principles underpinning the framework. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/soil_policy_en.htm (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Fernández-Ugalde O., Virto I., Barré P., Gartzia-Bengoetxea N., Enrique A., Imaz M. J., et al. (2011). Effect of carbonates on the hierarchical model of aggregation in calcareous semi-arid Mediterranean soils. Geoderma 164, 203–214. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.06.008
Follett R. F., Stewart C. E., Pruessner E. G., and Kimble J. M. (2015). Great plains climate and land-use effects on soil organic carbon. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 79, 261. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2014.07.0282
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021). The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture. Systems at breaking point (SOLAW 2021). Rome, Italy: FAO.
Fouilleux E., Bricas N., and Alpha A. (2017). ‘Feeding 9 billion people’: global food security debates and the productionist trap. J. Eur. Public Policy 24, 1658–1677. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1334084
Francis G. S. and Knight T. L. (1993). Long-term effects of conventional and no-tillage on selected soil properties and crop yields in Canterbury, New Zealand. Soil Tillage Res. 26, 193–210. doi: 10.1016/0167-1987(93)90044-P
Franzluebbers A. J. and Stuedemann J. A. (2008). Soil physical responses to cattle grazing cover crops under conventional and no tillage in the Southern Piedmont USA. Soil Tillage Res. 100, 141–153. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2008.05.011
Franzluebbers A. J. and Stuedemann J. A. (2014). Crop and cattle production responses to tillage and cover crop management in an integrated crop-livestock system in the southeastern USA. Eur. J. Agron. 57, 62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.009
Garba I. I., Bell L. W., and Williams A. (2022). Cover crop legacy impacts on soil water and nitrogen dynamics, and on subsequent crop yields in drylands: a meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain Dev. 42, 34. doi: 10.1007/s13593-022-00760-0
Gaskin J., Cabrera M., and Kissel D. (2016). Predicting nitrogen release from cover crops: The cover crop nitrogen availability calculator (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Extension Bulletin), 1466.
Ghimire R., Ghimire B., Mesbah A. O., Sainju U. M., and Idowu O. J. (2019). Soil health response of cover crops in winter wheat–fallow system. Agron. J. 111, 2108–2115. doi: 10.2134/agronj2018.08.0492
Gliessman S. (2020). Improving soil health with cover crops. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 44, 681–682. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2020.1727045
González-Ruiz R., Gómez-Guzmán J. A., Martínez-Rojas M., García-Fuentes A., Cordovilla M. del P., Sainz-Pérez M., et al. (2023). The Influence of Mixed Green Covers, a New Trend in Organic Olive Growing, on the Efficiency of Predatory Insects. Agriculture (Basel) 13 (4), 785. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13040785
Gruver J., Weil R. R., White C., Lawley Y., Gruver J., Weil R. R., et al. (2014). Radishes: a new cover crop for organic farming systems (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University), 1–19.
Hagerty C. H., Shrestha G., Wen N., Kroese D. R., Namdar G. F., Paulitz T., et al. (2024). Hemp Cover Cropping and Disease Suppression in Winter Wheat of the Dryland Pacific Northwest. Agronomy (Basel) 14 (12), 2978. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14122978
Hampf A. C., Stella T., Berg-Mohnicke M., Kawohl T., Kilian M., and Nendel C. (2020). Future yields of double-cropping systems in the Southern Amazon, Brazil, under climate change and technological development. Agric. Syst. 177. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102707
Harris R. F., Karlen D. L., and Mulla D. J. (2015). “A conceptual framework for assessment and management of soil quality and health,” in Methods for Assessing Soil Quality SSSA Special Publications, 61–82. doi: 10.2136/sssaspecpub49.c4
Hatano R., Mukumbuta I., and Shimizu M. (2024). Soil health intensification through strengthening soil structure improves soil carbon sequestration. Agriculture 14, 1290. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14081290
Haynes R. J. and Beare M. H. (1997). Influence of six crop species on aggregate stability and some labile organic matter fractions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 1647–1653. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00078-3
He C., Harindintwali J. D., Cui H., Yao J., Wang Z., Zhu Q., et al. (2025). Warm growing season activates microbial nutrient cycling to promote fertilizer nitrogen uptake by maize. Microbiol. Res. 290, 127936. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2024.127936
Hendrickson J. R., Liebig M. A., Archer D. W., Schmer M. R., Nichols K. A., and Tanaka D. L. (2021). Late-seeded cover crops in a semiarid environment: overyielding, dominance and subsequent crop yield. Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 36, 587–598. doi: 10.1017/S174217052100020X
Henryson K., Kätterer T., Tidåker P., and Sundberg C. (2020). Soil N2O emissions, N leaching and marine eutrophication in life cycle assessment – A comparison of modelling approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 725, 138332. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138332
Hevia G. G., Mendez M., and Buschiazzo D. E. (2007). Tillage affects soil aggregation parameters linked with wind erosion. Geoderma 140, 90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.03.001
Hoorman J. J. (2009). Agriculture and Natural Resources Using Cover Crops to Improve Soil and Water Quality Vol. 4 (Columbus, Ohio: Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Ohio State University Extension).
Hu J., Wang J., Zhang P., Tian L., Yuan Y., Wei Q., et al. (2025). Optimizing maize-soybean intercropping patterns under film-edge cultivation regulates soil bacterial communities to enhance productivity and water use efficiency. Front. Plant Sci. 16, 1683061. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1683061
Hu Q., Thomas B. W., Powlson D., Hu Y., Zhang Y., Jun X., et al. (2023). Soil organic carbon fractions in response to soil, environmental and agronomic factors under cover cropping systems: A global meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 355, 108591. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108591
Huang J., Yu H., Guan X., Wang G., and Guo R. (2016). Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 166–171. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2837
Hussain M. Z., Bhardwaj A. K., Basso B., Robertson G. P., and Hamilton S. K. (2019). Nitrate leaching from continuous corn, perennial grasses, and poplar in the US Midwest. J. Environ. Qual 48, 1849–1855. doi: 10.2134/jeq2019.04.0156
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019). Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Iweriebor E. E. G. (2011). The Colonization of Africa (New York, NY: Africana Age-Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture).
Izlar R. (2018). Crop rotation, grazing rebuilds soil health (American Society of Agronomy). Available online at: https://www.agronomy.org/science-news/story/crop-rotation-grazing-rest-promotes-soil-health (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Jaziri S., M’hamed H. C., Rezgui M., Labidi S., Souissi A., Rezgui M., et al. (2022). Long term effects of tillage–crop rotation interaction on soil organic carbon pools and microbial activity on wheat-based system in Mediterranean semi-arid region. Agronomy (Basel) 12 (4), 953. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12040953
Jian J., Du X., Reiter M. S., and Stewart R. D. (2020). A meta-analysis of global cropland soil carbon changes due to cover cropping. Soil Biol. Biochem. 143, 107735. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107735
Jordon M. W., Winter D. M., and Petrokofsky G. (2023). Advantages, disadvantages, and reasons for non-adoption of rotational grazing, herbal leys, trees on farms and ley-arable rotations on English livestock farms. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 47, 330–354. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2022.2146253
Joyce B., Wallender W., Mitchell J., Huyck L., Temple S., Brostrom P., et al. (2002). Infiltration and soil water storage under winter cover cropping in California’s sacramento valley. Trans. ASAE 45, 315-326. doi: 10.13031/2013.8526
Kabato W., Hailegnaw N., Mutum L., and Molnar Z. (2025). Managing soil health for climate resilience and crop productivity in a changing environment. Sci. Total Environ. 1000, 180460. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180460
Kar G. and Kumar A. (2009). Evaluation of post-rainy season crops with residual soil moisture and different tillage methods in rice fallow of eastern India. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 931–938. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.01.002
Karpouzas D. G., Karanasios E., and Menkissoglu-Spiroudi U. (2004). Enhanced microbial degradation of cadusafos in soils from potato monoculture: Demonstration and characterization. Chemosphere 56, 549–559. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.04.019
Kaspar T. C., Jaynes D. B., Parkin T. B., Moorman T. B., and Singer J. W. (2012). Effectiveness of oat and rye cover crops in reducing nitrate losses in drainage water. Agric. Water Manag. 110, 25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.03.010
Kassam A., Friedrich T., and Derpsch R. (2022). Successful experiences and lessons from conservation agriculture worldwide. Agronomy (Basel) 12 (4), 769. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12040769
Kaurin A., Mihelič R., Kastelec D., Grčman H., Bru D., Philippot L., et al. (2018). Resilience of bacteria, archaea, fungi and N-cycling microbial guilds under plough and conservation tillage, to agricultural drought. Soil Biol. Biochem. 120, 233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.02.007
Kaye J. P. and Quemada M. (2017). Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain Dev. 37. doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x
Khangura R., Ferris D., Wagg C., and Bowyer J. (2023). Regenerative agriculture—A literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health. Sustainability 15, 2338. doi: 10.3390/su15032338
Khasawneh A.-R. and Othman Y. A. (2020). Organic farming and conservation tillage influenced soil health component. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 29, 895–902. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339884547_ORGANIC_FARMING_AND_CONSERVATION_TILLAGE_INFLUENCED_SOIL_HEALTH_COMPONENT#fullTextFileContent (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Kibblewhite M. G., Ritz K., and Swift M. J. (2008). Soil health in agricultural systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363, 685–701. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2178
Kirchner J. W. and Well A. (2000). Delayed biological recovery from extinctions throughout the fossil record. Nature 404, 177–180. doi: 10.1038/35004564
Korucu T., Shipitalo M. J., and Kaspar T. C. (2018). Rye cover crop increases earthworm populations and reduces losses of broadcast, fall-applied, fertilizers in surface runoff. Soil Tillage Res. 180, 99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2018.03.004
Kuhwald M., Busche F., Saggau P., and Duttmann R. (2022). Is soil loss due to crop harvesting the most disregarded soil erosion process? A review of harvest erosion. Soil Tillage Res. 215, 105213. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105213
Kuotsu K., Munda G. C., Das A., and Verma B. (2014). Soil health as affected by altered land configuration and conservation tillage in a groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) - toria (Brassica campestris var toria) cropping system. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 84, 241–247. doi: 10.56093/ijas.v84i2.38041
LaCanne C. E. and Lundgren J. G. (2018). Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6, e4428. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4428
Lacey C. and Armstrong S. (2015). The efficacy of winter cover crops to stabilize soil inorganic nitrogen after fall-applied anhydrous ammonia. J. Environ. Qual 44, 442–448. doi: 10.2134/jeq2013.12.0529
Lal R. (2016). Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 5, 212–222. doi: 10.1002/fes3.96
Lal B., Gautam P., Nayak A. K., Panda B. B., Bihari P., Tripathi R., et al. (2019). Energy and carbon budgeting of tillage for environmentally clean and resilient soil health of rice-maize cropping system. J. Clean Prod. 226, 815–830. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.041
Li P., Ying D., Li J., Deng J., Li C., Tian S., et al. (2023). Global-scale no-tillage impacts on soil aggregates and associated carbon and nitrogen concentrations in croplands: A meta-analysis. The Science of the Total Environment 881, 163570. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163570
Liebman M. and Dyck E. (2009). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3, 92–122. doi: 10.2307/1941795
Lienhard P., Lestrelin G., Phanthanivong I., Kiewvongphachan X., Leudphanane B., Lairez J., et al. (2020). Opportunities and constraints for adoption of maize-legume mixed cropping systems in Laos. Int. J. Agric. Sustain 18 (5):1–17. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2020.1792680
Lin B. B. (2011). Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience 61, 183–193. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4
Liu Z., Cao S., Sun Z., Wang H., Qu S., Lei N., et al. (2021). Tillage effects on soil properties and crop yield after land reclamation. Sci. Rep. 11, 4611. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84191-z
Liu L., Zhang T., Gilliam F. S., Gundersen P., Zhang W., Chen H., et al. (2013). Interactive effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on soil microbial communities in a tropical forest. PloS One 8, e61188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061188
Lodge G. M. and Murphy S. R. (2006). Root depth of native and sown perennial grass-based pastures, North-West Slopes, New South Wales. 1. Estimates from cores and effects of grazing treatments. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 337–345. doi: 10.1071/EA04276
Long E., Ketterings Q., and Czymmek K. (2013). Survey of cover crop use on New York dairy farms. Crop Manage. 12, 1-5. doi: 10.1094/CM-2013-0019-RS
Lu Y. C., Watkins K. B., Teasdale J. R., and Abdul-Baki A. A. (2000). Cover crops in sustainable food production. Food Rev. Int. 16, 121–157. doi: 10.1081/FRI-100100285
Luo Z., Wang E., and Sun O. J. (2010). Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 139, 224–231. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.08.006
Lupwayi N. Z., Rice W. A., and Clayton G. W. (1998). Soil microbial diversity and community structure under wheat as influenced by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1733–1741. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00025-X
Maharjan B., Das S., Thapa V. R., and Sharma Acharya B. (2024). Soil health cycle. Agrosystems Geosciences Environ. 7. doi: 10.1002/agg2.20504
Martínez-Valderrama J., Gartzia R., Olcina J., Guirado E., Ibáñez J., and Maestre F. T. (2024). Uberizing agriculture in drylands: A few enriched, everyone endangered. Water Resour. Manage. 38, 193–214. doi: 10.1007/s11269-023-03663-1
Martin-Guay M. O., Paquette A., Dupras J., and Rivest D. (2018). The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 767–772. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024
Masilionyte L., Maiksteniene S., Kriauciuniene Z., Jablonskyte-Rasce D., Zou L., and Sarauskis E. (2017). Effect of cover crops in smothering weeds and volunteer plants in alternative farming systems. Crop Prot. 91, 74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.09.016
Maughan M. W., Flores J. P. C., Anghinoni I., Bollero G., Fernández F. G., and Tracy B. F. (2009). Soil quality and corn yield under crop–livestock integration in Illinois. Agron. J. 101, 1503–1510. doi: 10.2134/agronj2009.0068
McCauley A., Jones C., and Jacobsen J. (2009). Soil pH and organic matter. Nutrient management module 8 (2), 1–12. (Accessed January 22, 2026).
McVay K. A., Radcliffe D. E., and Hargrove W. L. (1989). Winter legume effects on soil properties and nitrogen fertilizer requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 53, 1856–1862. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1989.03615995005300060040x
Meena R. S., Meena V. S., Meena S. K., and Verma J. P. (2015). The needs of healthy soils for a healthy world. J. Clean Prod. 102, 560–561. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.045
Menard R. J. and Duncan H. (2024). Digging into Dirt: Southern States Adoption of No-Till and Reduced Tillage Practices (Stillwater, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University).
Milchunas D. G., Vandever M. W., O.Ball L., and Hyberg S. (2011). Allelopathic cover crop prior to seeding is more important than subsequent grazing/mowing in grassland establishment. Rangel Ecol. Manag. 64, 291–300. doi: 10.2111/REM-D-10-00117.1
Miller L., Chin J., Zook K., Reid A. C., and Nc D. (2012). Policy Opportunities to Increase Cover Crop Adoption on North Carolina Farms A report for the Union of Concerned Scientists (Durham, NC: Duke University).
Mine S., Zoubek S., Cory-Watson D., and Lowe M. (2014). Adoption of conservation agriculture: Economic incentives in the Iowa corn value chain (Washington, DC: Datu Research, LLC).
Mirzabaev A., Stringer L. C., Benjaminsen T. A., Gonzalez P., Harris R., Jafari M., et al. (2022). Cross-Chapter Paper 3: Deserts, Semi-Arid Areas and Desertification. In: Pörtner H.-O., Roberts D. C., Tignor M., Poloczanska E. S., Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., et al, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 2195–2231). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781009325844.020
Mirzabaev A., Wu J., Evans J., García-Oliva F., Hussein I. A. G., Iqbal M. H., et al. (2022). “Desertification,” in Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), 249–344. doi: 10.1017/9781009157988.005
Mitchell J. P., Shrestha A., Mathesius K., Scow K. M., Southard R. J., Haney R. L., et al. (2017). Cover cropping and no-tillage improve soil health in an arid irrigated cropping system in California’s San Joaquin Valley, USA. Soil Tillage Res. 165, 325–335. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.09.001
Montanarella L., Pennock D. J., McKenzie N., Badraoui M., Chude V., Baptista I., et al. (2016). World’s soils are under threat. Soil 2, 79–82. doi: 10.5194/soil-2-79-2016
Morris E. K., Morris D. J. P., Vogt S., Gleber S. C., Bigalke M., Wilcke W., et al. (2019). Visualizing the dynamics of soil aggregation as affected by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. ISME J. 13, 1639–1646. doi: 10.1038/s41396-019-0369-0
Mudare S., Jing J., Makowski D., He X., Liang Z., Sims Z., et al. (2025). Crop rotations synergize yield, nutrition, and revenue: a meta-analysis. Nat. Commun. 16, 9552. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-64567-9
Musara J. P., Tibugari H., Moyo B., and Mutizira C. (2021). Crop-livestock integration practices, knowledge, and attitudes among smallholder farmers: Hedging against climate change-induced shocks in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Open Life Sci. 16, 1330–1340. doi: 10.1515/biol-2021-0135
Nielsen D. C., Lyon D. J., Higgins R. K., Hergert G. W., Holman J. D., and Vigil M. F. (2016). Cover Crop Effect on Subsequent Wheat Yield in the Central Great Plains. Agron. J. 108, 243–256. doi: 10.2134/agronj2015.0372
Novara A., Minacapilli M., Santoro A., Rodrigo-Comino J., Carrubba A., Sarno M., et al. (2019). Real cover crops contribution to soil organic carbon sequestration in sloping vineyard. Sci. Total Environ. 652, 300–306. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.247
NRCS (n.d.). Soil Health. Available online at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/soils/soil-health.
NRCS (2009). Rotations for Soil Fertility: Small Scale Solutions for Your Farm. (Washington, D.C.: The United States Department of Agriculture), 1–4.
Nunes M. R., Karlen D. L., Denardin J. E., and Cambardella C. A. (2019). Corn root and soil health indicator response to no-till production practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 285, 106607. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106607
Nunes M. R., Karlen D. L., Veum K. S., Moorman T. B., and Cambardella C. A. (2020). Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US meta-analysis. Geoderma 369, 114335. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114335
Nunes P. A., Laca E. A., de Faccio Carvalho P. C., Li M., de Souza Filho W., Robinson Kunrath T., et al. (2021). Livestock integration into soybean systems improves long-term system stability and profits without compromising crop yields. Sci. Rep. 11, 1649. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81270-z
Nunes M. R., van Es H. M., Schindelbeck R., Ristow A. J., and Ryan M. (2018). No-till and cropping system diversification improve soil health and crop yield. Geoderma 328, 30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.04.031
Nyawade S. O., Karanja N. N., Gachene C. K. K., Gitari H. I., Schulte-Geldermann E., and Parker M. L. (2019). Short-term dynamics of soil organic matter fractions and microbial activity in smallholder potato-legume intercropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 142, 123–135. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.04.015
Obrycki J. F., Karlen D. L., Cambardella C. A., Kovar J. L., and Birrell S. J. (2018). Corn stover harvest, tillage, and cover crop effects on soil health indicators. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 82, 910–918. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2017.12.0415
Olson K. R. (2013). Soil organic carbon sequestration, storage, retention and loss in U.S. croplands: Issues paper for protocol development. Geoderma 195–196, 201–206. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.12.004
Olson B. E. and Richards J. H. (1988). Tussock regrowth after grazing: intercalary meristem and axillary bud activity of tillers of Agropyron desertorum. Oikos, 374–382. doi: 10.2307/3565321
Ozbayram E., Ince O., Ince B., Harms H., and Kleinsteuber S. (2018). Comparison of rumen and manure microbiomes and implications for the inoculation of anaerobic digesters. Microorganisms 6, 15. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms6010015
Pal P. K. and Mahajan M. (2017). Tillage system and organic mulch influence leaf biomass, steviol glycoside yield and soil health under sub-temperate conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 104, 33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.04.012
Panday S. C., Singh R. D., Saha S., Singh K., Chaudhary V. P., Kumar A., et al. (2008). Effect of tillage and irrigation on yield, profitability, water productivity and soil health in rice (Oryza sativa) - Wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system in north-west Himalayas. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 78, 1018–1022.
Parr M., Grossman J. M., Reberg-Horton S. C., Brinton C., and Crozier C. (2011). Nitrogen delivery from legume cover crops in no-till organic corn production. Agron. J. 103, 1578–1590. doi: 10.2134/agronj2011.0007
Parvej M. R., Brandt D., Myers R., Nelson K., Singh G., and Reinbott T. (2025). Soil organic carbon: A foundational indicator of soil health. Publication No. G9071. University of Missouri, MU Extension.
Peng Y., Wang L., Jacinthe P.-A., and Ren W. (2024). Global synthesis of cover crop impacts on main crop yield. Field Crops Res. 310, 109343. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109343
Peng Y., Zhang H., Lv Z., Zhang J., and Li G. (2025). Microbial inoculation improves soil aggregation by enhancing exopolysaccharides and lipopolysaccharides-related gene abundance in saline soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 214, 106388. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2025.106388
Peterson C. A., Deiss L., and Gaudin A. C. M. (2020). Commercial integrated crop-livestock systems achieve comparable crop yields to specialized production systems: A meta-analysis. PloS One 15, e0231840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231840
Phiri S., Barrios E., Rao I. M., and Singh B. R. (2001). Changes in soil organic matter and phosphorus fractions under planted fallows and a crop rotation system on a Colombian volcanic-ash soil. Plant Soil 231, 211–223. doi: 10.1023/A:1010310300067
Pieper J. R., Brown R. N., and Amador J. A. (2015). Effects of three conservation tillage strategies on yields and soil health in a mixed vegetable production system. HortScience 50, 1770–1776. doi: 10.21273/hortsci.50.12.1770
Pittelkow C. M., Linquist B. A., Lundy M. E., Liang X., van Groenigen K. J., Lee J., et al. (2015). When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 183, 156–168. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020
Poeplau C. and Don A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops - A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024
Prasad D., Rana D., Babu S., Choudhary A., and Rajput S. (2016). Influence of tillage practices and crop diversification on productivity and soil health in maize (Zea mays)/soybean (Glycine max) based cropping systems. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 86, 96–102. doi: 10.56093/ijas.v86i1.55238
Pratt K. (2024). 2022 US Census of Agriculture Reports Increase in No-Till Acres, Decrease in Conservation Tillage.
Pratt M. R., Tyner W. E., Muth D. J., and Kladivko E. J. (2014). Synergies between cover crops and corn stover removal. Agric. Syst. 130, 67–76. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.06.008
Prăvălie R., Patriche C., Borrelli P., Panagos P., Roşca B., Dumitraşcu M., et al. (2021). Arable lands under the pressure of multiple land degradation processes. A global perspective. Environ. Res. 194, 110697. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110697
Qiu T., Shi Y., Peñuelas J., Liu J., Cui Q., Sardans J., et al. (2024). Optimizing cover crop practices as a sustainable solution for global agroecosystem services. Nature Communications 15 (1), 10617. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54536-z
Qi Z. and Helmers M. J. (2010). Soil water dynamics under winter rye cover crop in central Iowa. Vadose Zone J. 9, 53–60. doi: 10.2136/vzj2008.0163
Rahman M. T., Zhu Q. H., Zhang Z. B., Zhou H., and Peng X. (2017). The roles of organic amendments and microbial community in the improvement of soil structure of a Vertisol. Appl. Soil Ecol. 111, 84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.11.018
Rai T. S., Nleya T., Kumar S., Sexton P., Wang T., and Fan Y. (2021). The medium-term impacts of integrated crop–livestock systems on crop yield and economic performance. Agron. J. 113, 5207–5221. doi: 10.1002/agj2.20840
Ranells N. N. and Wagger M. G. (1996). Nitrogen release from grass and legume cover crop monocultures and bicultures. Agron. J. 88, 777–882. doi: 10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800050015x
Rasmussen C. R., Thorup-Kristensen K., and Dresbøll D. B. (2020). Uptake of subsoil water below 2 m fails to alleviate drought response in deep-rooted Chicory (Cichorium intybus L.). Plant Soil 446, 275–290. doi: 10.1007/s11104-019-04349-7
Reddy P. P. (2016). “Cover/Green Manure Crops,” in Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production. Ed. Reddy P. P. (Springer Singapore, Singapore), 55–67. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-2702-4_4
Roesch-Mcnally G. E., Basche A. D., Arbuckle J. G., Tyndall J. C., Miguez F. E., Bowman T., et al. (2018). The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renewable Agric. Food Syst. 33, 322–333. doi: 10.1017/S1742170517000096
Roper W. R., Osmond D. L., Heitman J. L., Wagger M. G., and Reberg-Horton S. C. (2017). Soil health indicators do not differentiate among agronomic management systems in North Carolina soils. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 81, 828–843. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2016.12.0400
Rosenberg A. B. and Wallander S. (2022). Adoption of conservation tillage has increased over the past two decades on acreage planted to major US cash crops.
Russelle M. P., Entz M. H., and Franzluebbers A. J. (2007). Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99 (2), 325–334. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0139
Sackett J. L. (2013). An NCR-SARE cover crop project: farmer-cooperator motivation and agronomic practices. , https://hdl.handle.net/11299/161504 (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Sahu N., Vasu D., Sahu A., Lal N., and Singh S. K. (2017). “Strength of Microbes in Nutrient Cycling: A Key to Soil Health,” in Agriculturally Important Microbes for Sustainable Agriculture (Springer Singapore, Singapore), 69–86. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5589-8_4
Sainju U. M., Singh B. P., Whitehead W. F., and Wang S. (2006). Carbon supply and storage in tilled and nontilled soils as influenced by cover crops and nitrogen fertilization. J. Environ. Qual 35, 1507–1517. doi: 10.2134/jeq2005.0189
Saleem M., Hu J., and Jousset A. (2019). More than the sum of its parts: microbiome biodiversity as a driver of plant growth and soil health. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 145–168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062605
Saleem M., Pervaiz Z. H., Contreras J., Lindenberger J. H., Hupp B. M., Chen D., et al. (2020). Cover crop diversity improves multiple soil properties via altering root architectural traits. Rhizosphere 16, 100248. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2020.100248
Sanderman J., Hengl T., and Fiske G. J. (2017). Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 9575–9580. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706103114
Sanyal D., Rahhal A., Wolthuizen J., and Bly A. (2021). Identifying diversity and activities of soil microbes using pigmentation patterns on buried cotton strips: A novel approach. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 1–14. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2021.1908328
Sanyal D. and Wolthuizen J. (2021). Regenerative agriculture: beyond sustainability. Int. J. Agric. Res. Environ. Sci. 2, 1–2. doi: 10.51626/ijares.2021.02.00007
Sanyal D., Wolthuizen J., and Bly A. (2020). How’s Life in the Soil? Ask (Count) the Earthworms. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University.
Scavo A., Restuccia A., Lombardo S., Fontanazza S., Abbate C., Pandino G., et al. (2020). Improving soil health, weed management and nitrogen dynamics by Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping. Agron. Sustain Dev. 40. doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-00621-8
Schlegel A. J. and Havlin J. L. (1997). Green fallow for the central Great Plains. Agron. J. 89, 762–767. doi: 10.2134/agronj1997.00021962008900050009x
Schreefel L., Schulte R. P. O., de Boer I. J. M., Schrijver A. P., and van Zanten H. H. E. (2020). Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Glob. Food Sec 26, 100404. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404
Seifert C. A., Roberts M. J., and Lobell D. B. (2017). Continuous corn and soybean yield penalties across hundreds of thousands of fields. Agron. J. 109, 541–548. doi: 10.2134/agronj2016.03.0134
Shen H., He Y., Hu W., Geng S., Han X., Zhao Z., et al. (2019). The temporal evolution of soil erosion for corn and fallow hillslopes in the typical Mollisol region of Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 186, 200–205. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2018.10.024
Sher A., Li H., ullah A., Hamid Y., Nasir B., and Zhang J. (2024). Importance of regenerative agriculture: climate, soil health, biodiversity and its socioecological impact. Discover Sustainability 5, 462. doi: 10.1007/s43621-024-00662-z
Shi Y., Gahagan A. C., Morrison M. J., Gregorich E., Lapen D. R., and Chen W. (2024). Stratified Effects of Tillage and Crop Rotations on Soil Microbes in Carbon and Nitrogen Cycles at Different Soil Depths in Long-Term Corn, Soybean, and Wheat Cultivation. Microorganisms (Basel) 12 (8), 1635. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12081635
Snapp S. S., Swinton S. M., Labarta R., Mutch D., Black J. R., Leep R., et al. (2005). Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agron. J. 97, 322–332. doi: 10.2134/agronj2005.0322a
Sprunger C. D., Martin T., and Mann M. (2020). Systems with greater perenniality and crop diversity enhance soil biological health. Agric. Environ. Lett. 5, 1–6. doi: 10.1002/ael2.20030
Steffen W., Richardson K., Rockström J., Cornell S. E., Fetzer I., Bennett E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Sci. (1979) 347. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
Szott L. T., Palm C. A., and Buresh R. J. (1999). Ecosystem fertility and fallow function in the humid and subhumid tropics. Agroforestry Syst. 47, 163–196. doi: 10.1023/a:1006215430432
Taneja G., Rawat S., and Vatta K. (2018). Towards unsustainable resource use in Punjab agriculture. Indian J. Ecol. 45, 342–346. https://indianecologicalsociety.com/wp-content/themes/ecology/volume_pdfs/p19.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Thapa V. R., Ghimire R., and Marsalis M. A. (2021). Cover Crops for Resilience of a Limited-Irrigation Winter Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation: Soil Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sorghum Yield Responses. Agronomy (Basel) 11 (4), 762. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11040762
The Business Research Company (2025). Regenerative agriculture global market report 2025. Available online at: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/regenerative-agriculture-global-market-report (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Thomas B. W., Hunt D., Bittman S., Hannam K. D., Messiga A. J., Haak D., et al. (2019). Soil health indicators after 21 yr of no-tillage in South Coastal British Columbia. Can. J. Soil Sci. 99, 222–225. doi: 10.1139/cjss-2018-0146
Toensmeier E., Ferguson R., and Mehra M. (2020). Perennial vegetables: A neglected resource for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and nutrition. PloS One 15, 1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234611
Tschumi M., Albrecht M., Bärtschi C., Collatz J., Entling M. H., and Jacot K. (2016). Perennial, species-rich wildflower strips enhance pest control and crop yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 220, 97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.001
Uchino H., Iwama K., Jitsuyama Y., Yudate T., and Nakamura S. (2009). Yield losses of soybean and maize by competition with interseeded cover crops and weeds in organic-based cropping systems. Field Crops Res. 113, 342–351. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.013
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (2017). The Global Land Outlook. (Bonn, Germany: UNCCD).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2024). Table 47. Land Use Practices: 2022 and 2017 (2022 Census of Agriculture – Volume 1, Chapter 1, United States Data). United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved May 4, 2025.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2022). 2022 census of agriculture. Available online at: www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Van Eerd L. L., Congreves K. A., Hayes A., Verhallen A., and Hooker D. C. (2014). Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on soil quality, organic carbon, and total nitrogen. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94, 303–315. doi: 10.4141/cjss2013-093
Vaughan J. D. (1994). Management and assessment of winter cover crop systems for supplying nitrogen to corn in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States (Virginia Tech).
Verma J. P., Jaiswal D. K., Meena V. S., and Meena R. S. (2015). Current need of organic farming for enhancing sustainable agriculture. J. Clean Prod. 102, 545–547. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.035
Villat J. and Nicholas K. A. (2024). Quantifying soil carbon sequestration from regenerative agricultural practices in crops and vineyards. Front. Sustain Food Syst. 7. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1234108
Wade T., Claassen R., and Pailler S. (2022). No-till adoption by corn and soybean producers: An examination of tenure. J. Soil Water Conserv. 77, 482–492. doi: 10.2489/jswc.2022.00022
Wang X.B., Cai D. X., Hoogmoed W. B., Oenema O., and Perdok U. D. (2006). Potential effect of conservation tillage on sustainable land use: A review of global long-term studies. Pedosphere 16, 587–595. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(06)60092-1
Wegner B. R., Osborne S. L., Lehman R. M., and Kumar S. (2018). Seven-year impact of cover crops on soil health when corn residue is removed. Bioenergy Res. 11, 239–248. doi: 10.1007/s12155-017-9891-y
Wei S., Fang J., Zhang T., Wang J., Cheng Y., Ma J., et al. (2023). Dynamic changes of soil microorganisms in rotation farmland at the western foot of the Greater Khingan range. Front. Bioengineering Biotechnol. 11, 1191240. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1191240
Wells M. S., Reberg-Horton S. C., and Mirsky S. B. (2014). Cultural strategies for managing weeds and soil moisture in cover crop based no-till soybean production. Weed Sci. 62, 501–511. doi: 10.1614/WS-D-13-00142.1
Willett W., Rockström J., Loken B., Springmann M., Lang T., Vermeulen S., et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Williams A., Veneman P., and Shan Xi. (2005). Effect of cultivation on soil organic matter and aggregate stability. Chin. J. Soil Sci. English Ed, 255–262.
Williams A., Birt H. W. G., Raghavendra A., et al. (2023). Cropping System Diversification Influences Soil Microbial Diversity in Subtropical Dryland Farming Systems. Microb. Ecol. 85, 1473–1484. doi: 10.1007/s00248-022-02074-w
Xiang J., Shi W., Jing Z., Guan Y., Yang F., Wang G., et al. (2024). Exogenous calcium-induced carbonate formation to increase carbon sequestration in coastal saline-alkali soil. Sci. Total Environ. 946, 174338. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174338
Yadav G., Datta M., Babu S., Das A., Bhowmik S., Ranebennur H., et al. (2015). Effect of tillage and crop-establishment techniques on productivity, profitability and soil health under maize (Zea Mays)–maize–field pea (Pisum Sativum) cropping system. Indian J. Agron. 60, 360–364. doi: 10.59797/ija.v60i3.4485
Yadav P. K. and Singh S. (2023). Role of earthworms in soil health and variables influencing their population dynamic: A review. Pharma Innovation J. 12, 1961–1965. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371256061 (Accessed January 22, 2026).
Zablotowicz R. M., Locke M. A., and Gaston L. A. (2007). Tillage and cover effects on soil microbial properties and fluometuron degradation. Biol. Fertil. Soils 44, 27–35. doi: 10.1007/s00374-007-0175-0
Zaeem M., Nadeem M., Pham T. H., Ashiq W., Ali W., Gilani S. S. M., et al. (2019). The potential of corn-soybean intercropping to improve the soil health status and biomass production in cool climate boreal ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–17. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49558-3
Zaralis K. and Padel S. (2017). The effects of “mob grazing” on soil organic matter and dairy cow performance - a case study. In Salampasis M., Theodoridis A., and Bournaris T. (eds). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment. Chania, Crete Island, Greece. 21–24.
Zhang S., Hu W., Zhang J., Yu G., Liu Y., Kong Z., et al. (2024). Long-term cultivation reduces soil carbon storage by altering microbial network complexity and metabolism activity in macroaggregates. Sci. Total Environ. 930, 172788. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172788
Zhang H. M., Yang X. Y., He X. H., Xu M. G., Huang S. M., Liu H., et al. (2011). Effect of long-term potassium fertilization on crop yield and potassium efficiency and balance under wheat-maize rotation in China. Pedosphere 21, 154–163. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60113-6
Zhang X., Zhao L., Tong D., Wu G., Dan M., and Teng B. (2016). A systematic review of global desert dust and associated human health effects. Atmosphere (Basel) 7, 158. doi: 10.3390/atmos7120158
Zhao J., Chen J., Beillouin D., Lambers H., Yang Y., Smith P., et al. (2022). Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers. Nat. Commun. 13, 4926. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32464-0
Keywords: cover crop, crop rotation, soil health indicators, desert ecosystem, livestock integration, tillage
Citation: Arp JT, Sanyal D, Kaur J, Karki D and Bly A (2026) Exploring the nexus between regenerative agriculture and soil health: a special emphasis on semi-arid and arid agriculture. Front. Agron. 8:1666008. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2026.1666008
Received: 14 July 2025; Accepted: 08 January 2026; Revised: 23 December 2025;
Published: 09 February 2026.
Edited by:
Pratap Bhattacharyya, ICAR-NRRI, IndiaReviewed by:
Peter C. McKeown, University of Galway, IrelandPrem Ranjan, The ICAR Research Complex for North Eastern Hill Region (ICAR RC NEH), India
Copyright © 2026 Arp, Sanyal, Kaur, Karki and Bly. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Debankur Sanyal, ZHNhbnlhbEBhcml6b25hLmVkdQ==