Intervention effectmodel-written summary

The continuous no-till system with gypsum did not increase soybean yield.

A claim from Soil physical and phenological attributes of soybean in different management systems and gypsum · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The continuous no-till system with gypsum did not increase soybean yield.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe2
Treatment
no-till system continuous (SPDC) over time with the application of gypsume1
Outcome
soybean yielde2
Direction
no increasee2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The no-till system continuous (SPDC) over time with the application of gypsum provided continuous values of soil physical attributes in the two layers and years of cultivation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 916–1091
e2

“It was also the system that provided higher values of final population and of the mass of one hundred grains, with no increase in soybean yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1093–1236

Title

Soil physical and phenological attributes of soybean in different management systems and gypsum

L.A. Freitas; L.M.M. Mello; M. Andreotti; et al. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias - Brazilian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2017. doi:10.5039/agraria.v12i4a5487

Other claims from this paper (2)

Record rev-d72753cfaede151b47ee4b3a8daaa7a3569d67fabf31301658ee3b638864ae4d · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

lime · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

141 papers: 108 positive, 33 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this claim · 108 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Gypsum increased average crop grain yield by 14% with water deficiency and by 7% without it.

    Does gypsum increase crop grain yield on no‐tilled acid soils? A meta‐analysis · 2020

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    In 82 % of 17 harvests, yield of modern maize, wheat and soybean cultivars increased in response to gypsum and lime inputs on no-till Oxisol.

    Modern High-Yielding Maize, Wheat and Soybean Cultivars in Response to Gypsum and Lime Application on No-Till Oxisol · 2017

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Lime increased soybean grain yield quadratically.

    Influence of Lime and Gypsum on Yield and Yield Components of Soybean and Changes in Soil Chemical Properties · 2013

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Deep incorporation of lime increased crop yields.

    Effect of Physical and Chemical Profile Modification on Soybean and Corn Production · 1985

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Maximum soybean yield occurred with 1.2 t of lime per hectare in the two initial years.

    Aluminum and Calcium Constraints to Continuous Crop Production in a Brazilian Amazon Oxisol · 1992

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Soybean yield increased by up to 44% in the third year.

    Response of maize and soybeans to liming · 2012

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Applying 10 Mg ha−1 lime with 80 Mg ha−1 cattle manure gave the maximum soybean grain yield.

    Lime and Cattle Manure in Soil Fertility and Soybean Grain Yield Cultivated in Tropical Soil · 2015

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Liming the soil to pH 5.8 increased the yield of the sensitive cultivar Chief by 40% relative to unlimed soil.

    Soybean Germplasm and Cultivar Aluminum Tolerance in Nutrient Solution and Bladen Clay Loam Soil1 · 1982 · compared with unlimed soil

    Opposite direction

132 papers more in this group

See all 141 papers →

tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

390 papers: 264 positive, 126 negative or no effect

125 papers in the same direction as this claim · 264 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    No-tillage soybean yield was 6% higher than under conventional tillage.

    Corn and Soybean Response to Rotation Sequence, Row Spacing, and Tillage System · 2003 · compared with conventional tillage system

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Conservation tillage with corn-soybean rotation gave the most consistent yield increase over four years.

    Influence of Tillage and Crop Rotation on Yields of Corn, Soybean, and Wheat · 1988

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    No-tillage increased seed mass by 15% over conventional tillage.

    Response of Soybean Yield Components to Management System and Planting Date · 2004 · compared with conventional tillage system

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Tillage increased soybean yields.

    Long-term crop rotation and tillage effects on soil greenhouse gas emissions and crop production in Illinois, USA · 2018 · compared with no-tillage

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    At equivalent final stands, complete-tillage yields were less than 3 bu/acre higher than reduced or no-tillage yields.

    Soybean Planting Date, Row Width, and Seeding Rate Response in Three Tillage Systems · 1992 · compared with RT or NT

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Soybean yield was highest under no-till.

    Tillage, Crop Sequence, and Cultivar Effects on Sclerotinia Stem Rot Incidence and Yield in Soybean · 2001

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Long-term conservation tillage increased soybean yield by an average of 0.74%.

    Satellites reveal a small positive yield effect from conservation tillage across the US Corn Belt · 2019

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    No tillage increased soybean yield in one year.

    Water Use and Yield of Dryland Row Crops as Affected by Tillage · 1999

    Opposite direction

381 papers more in this group

See all 390 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.