Abstract
Subsoil acidity is an important yield‐limiting factor. Mechanical procedures of deep lime incorporation and surface applications of gypsum have been shown to be beneficial, but no long‐term comparisons of these strategies have been published. Without such information it is difficult to make appropriate management decisions. The work reported here was conducted toward this end. In a long‐term study with maize ( Zea mays L.) on a strongly acidic Plinthic Paleudult, conventional moldboard incorporation of lime (15 Mg ha −1 ) was compared with (i) deeper incorporation of the same quantity of lime with plowing and subsoiling operations, and (ii) treatments where large additional quantities of lime were similarly introduced below normal plow depth. The efficacy of gypsum was tested by adding 10 Mg ha −1 to conventionally limed plots. For 11 seasons, the average grain yield benefit ranged from 5 to 17% in the case of mechanical strategies and was 25% in the case of gypsum. Yields were increased only marginally by extra lime applications and segmental (slotted) amelioration proved inferior to deep‐plowing procedures. The gypsum treatment proved profitable only in the fourth season, but by the eighth season had proved more profitable than the best mechanical procedure; and by the 11th season, the gypsum treatment had resulted in a cumulative yield advantage of 3.8 Mg ha −1 Long‐term superiority of the gypsum treatment was unquestionable in this study, but gypsum is often unavailable and acidic soils are frequently unresponsive to gypsum. In such situations, deep plowing should not, as is often the case, be discarded as impractical.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical subsoil acidity strategies improved average maize grain yield by 5 to 17% over 11 seasons.
- Treatment
- mechanical strategiese0
- Outcome
- grain yield benefite0
- Direction
- benefite0
- Value
- 5 to 17%e0
- Qualifier
- For 11 seasonse0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For 11 seasons, the average grain yield benefit ranged from 5 to 17% in the case of mechanical strategies”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum improved average maize grain yield by 25% over 11 seasons.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For 11 seasons, the average grain yield benefit ranged from 5 to 17% in the case of mechanical strategies and was 25% in the case of gypsum”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Extra lime increased maize yield only marginally.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields were increased only marginally by extra lime applications”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Segmental amelioration was inferior to deep plowing for maize yield.
- Treatment
- segmental (slotted) amelioratione0
- Outcome
- inferiore0
- Direction
- inferiore0
- Comparator
- deep‐plowing procedurese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“segmental (slotted) amelioration proved inferior to deep‐plowing procedures”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum became more profitable than the best mechanical procedure by the eighth season.
- Treatment
- gypsume2
- Outcome
- profitablee0
- Direction
- more profitablee0
- Qualifier
- by the eighth seasone0
- Comparator
- the best mechanical proceduree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by the eighth season had proved more profitable than the best mechanical procedure”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
e2“The gypsum treatment proved profitable only in the fourth season”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum produced a cumulative maize yield advantage of 3.8 Mg ha−1 by season 11.
- Treatment
- gypsum treatmente0
- Outcome
- cumulative yield advantagee0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 3.8 Mg ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by the 11th season, the gypsum treatment had resulted in a cumulative yield advantage of 3.8 Mg ha −1”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum was profitable only in the fourth season.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gypsum treatment proved profitable only in the fourth season”
e1“maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend considering deep plowing where gypsum is unavailable or soils do not respond to it.
- Outcome
- deep plowing should not, as is often the case, be discarded as impractical.e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In such situations, deep plowing should not, as is often the case, be discarded as impractical.”
The same questions in other papers
lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
215 papers more in this group
See all 219 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.