Intervention effectmodel-written summary

No-tillage reduced yield by 975 kg/ha or 13% versus plowing on Mollic Ochraqualf under continuous corn.

A claim from Influence of Long Term Tillage, Crop Rotation, and Soil Type Combinations on Corn Yield · 1976

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage reduced yield by 975 kg/ha or 13% versus plowing on Mollic Ochraqualf under continuous corn.

Treatment
no‐tillage treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Value
975 kg/hae0
Comparator
plowed treatmentse0
Setting
Mollic Ochraqualf soile0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The no‐tillage treatment averaged 975 kg/ha or 13% lower yield than the average of plowed treatments on the Mollic Ochraqualf soil for 10 years of continuous corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1014–1176
e1

“corn yields”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 857–868

Title

Influence of Long Term Tillage, Crop Rotation, and Soil Type Combinations on Corn Yield

D. M. Van Doren; G. B. Triplett; J. E. Henry Soil Science Society of America Journal 1976. doi:10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000010027x

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-43fc0f93579cd5361e2fed10ffc77c15a65f2e86dbd73bb67ae7c37b5433e78c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

287 papers in the same direction as this claim · 811 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

1,090 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.