Paper · 2002 · Agronomy Journal

Corn Production as Affected by Tillage System and Starter Fertilizer

Jeffrey A. Vetsch; Gyles W. Randall

9
claims
15
verbatim quotes
137
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Potential agronomic and soil conservation benefits of modified no‐till (NT) systems make them appealing for corn ( Zea mays L.) production in the northern Corn Belt where adoption of NT has been limited due to yield reductions on these colder soils. A 4‐yr (1997–2000) experiment was conducted on a high P– and K–testing Port Byron silt loam (fine silty, mixed, mesic typic Hapludoll) to determine the effects of four tillage systems [no‐till (NT), Rawson zone till (ZT), fall strip till (ST), and conventional tillage practice (CT)] on corn production and cone index (CI; penetrometer resistance) in continuous corn and corn following soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Eight treatments, four tillage systems (main plots) with starter fertilizer at rates of 0 and 168 kg ha −1 of a 9–10–24, were arranged in a split‐plot design with four replicates. Surface residue coverage after planting was maintained at high levels (>40%) with NT, ZT, and ST, whereas coverage averaged only 25% with the CT practice. Cone index during the period of early plant growth was significantly less for the ZT and ST systems compared with the NT and CT systems, but CI did not exceed 1.3 MPa. Four‐year average yields of continuous corn grain ranked according to tillage were CT > ZT = ST > NT. A significant tillage × year interaction indicated equal yields for CT and NT in the first 2 yr but 1.0 to 1.2 Mg ha −1 less with NT in the last 2 yr. Tillage system did not significantly affect corn grain yields following soybean when averaged across years. Starter fertilizer increased yields by 0.5 Mg ha −1 on this high‐testing soil for all tillage systems in both crop rotations. Surface residue and corn yields following corn and soybean can be optimized using modified NT systems (ZT and ST) and starter fertilizer in these well‐drained, loess soils.

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 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surface residue coverage after planting stayed high (>40%) with no-till, zone till and strip till.

Treatment
NT, ZT, and STe0
Outcome
Surface residue coveragee0
Value
>40%e0

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

“Surface residue coverage after planting was maintained at high levels (>40%) with NT, ZT, and ST”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 851–947 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surface residue coverage averaged only 25% with conventional tillage.

Treatment
CT practicee0
Outcome
coveragee0
Value
25%e0

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

“coverage averaged only 25% with the CT practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1004 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cone index during early plant growth was significantly lower with zone till and strip till than with no-till and conventional tillage.

Treatment
ZT and ST systemse0
Outcome
Cone indexe0
Direction
lesse0
Comparator
NT and CT systemse0

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

“Cone index during the period of early plant growth was significantly less for the ZT and ST systems compared with the NT and CT systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1006–1141 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four-year average continuous corn grain yields ranked CT > ZT = ST > NT by tillage.

Treatment
tillagee0
Outcome
yields of continuous corn graine0
Direction
CT > ZT = ST > NTe0

Not reportedComparator

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

“yields of continuous corn grain ranked according to tillage were CT > ZT = ST > NT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1274 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

A significant tillage x year interaction indicated equal continuous corn yields for CT and NT in the first 2 years.

Treatment
CTe0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
equale0
Qualifier
in the first 2 yre0
Comparator
NTe0

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

“equal yields for CT and NT in the first 2 yr but 1.0 to 1.2 Mg ha −1 less with NT in the last 2 yr”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1327–1425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In the last 2 years yields were 1.0 to 1.2 Mg per ha less with NT, per the significant tillage x year interaction.

Treatment
NTe0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
lesse0
Value
1.0 to 1.2 Mg ha −1e0
Qualifier
in the last 2 yre0

Not reportedComparator

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

“equal yields for CT and NT in the first 2 yr but 1.0 to 1.2 Mg ha −1 less with NT in the last 2 yr”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1327–1425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage system did not significantly affect corn grain yields following soybean when averaged across years.

Treatment
Tillage systeme0
Outcome
corn grain yields following soybeane0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Tillage system did not significantly affect corn grain yields following soybean when averaged across years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1427–1533 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Starter fertilizer increased corn yields by 0.5 Mg per ha.

Treatment
Starter fertilizere0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
0.5 Mg ha −1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Starter fertilizer increased yields by 0.5 Mg ha −1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1535–1586 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that surface residue and corn yields following corn and soybean can be optimized using modified NT systems (ZT and ST) and starter fertilizer.

Outcome
Surface residue and corn yieldse0

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

“Surface residue and corn yields following corn and soybean can be optimized using modified NT systems (ZT and ST) and starter fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1661–1797 · show in text ↑

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

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

286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

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

3,908 papers: 3,485 positive, 423 negative or no effect

3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Starter did not affect grain yield.

    Growth Analysis of Corn Grown With or Without Starter Fertilizer · 1993 · compared with Without Starter Fertilizer

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

  2. no effect
  3. no effect

3,904 papers more in this group

See all 3,908 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.