Claim · model-written summary
Input costs excluding land rental and crop insurance were lower with no-tillage than with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- NTe2
- Outcome
- Input costse2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- $463 ha −1e2
- Qualifier
- excluding land rental and crop insurancee2
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee2
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Input costs excluding land rental and crop insurance were lower with NT ($463 ha −1 ) than with conventional tillage ($512 ha −1 )”
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 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.
- Intervention effect Tillage systems did not produce soybean yield differences with either rotation.