Claim · model-written summary
Tillage systems did not produce soybean yield differences with either rotation.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- Tillage systemse1
- Outcome
- soybean yield differencese1
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Tillage systems did not result in soybean yield differences with both rotations”
t0“Soybean”
Title
Soybean Spatiotemporal Yield and Economic Variability as Affected by Tillage and Crop Rotation
Mahdi M. Al‐Kaisi; Sotirios Archontoulis; David Kwaw‐Mensah Agronomy Journal 2016. doi:10.2134/agronj2015.0363
Other claims from this paper (14)
- Intervention effect No-tillage gave a higher economic return than conventional tillage in soybean.
- Intervention effect Input costs excluding land rental and crop insurance were lower with no-tillage than with conventional tillage.
- Intervention effect The soybean yield response to tillage systems was not significant at different locations.
- Intervention effect The C‐C‐S rotation gave greater soybean yields (9%) than the C‐S rotation in five of seven locations.
- Intervention effect The C‐C‐S rotation gave higher economic returns (11%) than the C‐S rotation in five of seven locations.
- Association Site-specific effects of rotation on soybean yield were greater than tillage system effects.
- Association The effect of C‐S, C‐C‐S and C‐C rotations on soybean was consistently higher in southern than in northern locations.
- Association Stable economic returns over time for corn and soybean were more associated with the C‐S rotation than with C‐C‐S and C‐C.
- Intervention effect C‐S cropping system yields and economic returns were superior to C‐C.
- Observation Soybean yield varied from 1.5 to 5.0 Mg ha −1 across Iowa.
- Observation Soybean yield variability across Iowa was 21%.
- Observation Spatial soybean yield variability was 16–26%.
- Observation Temporal soybean yield variability was 20–22%.
- Intervention effect No-tillage input cost was $49 ha −1 lower than that for CP, DR and MP tillage.