Paper · 2011 · Soil Science Society of America Journal

Soil and Crop Response to Varying Levels of Compaction, Nitrogen Fertilization, and Clay Content

E. G. Gregorich; D. R. Lapen; B. L. Ma; et al.

6
claims
8
verbatim quotes
33
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Compaction affects nearly all soil properties and functions, thereby affecting the growth, distribution, and function of roots, and crop productivity. Our objectives in this research were to evaluate the effects of compaction, N fertilization, and soil texture on corn ( Zea mays L.) growth and yield and to determine whether additional N fertilization could compensate for lower yields caused by compaction. Soil was differentially compacted for 3 yr to create two compaction treatments in Year 1 and four in Years 2 and 3; N fertilizer was applied at two rates in Year 1 and four different rates to each compaction treatment in Years 2 and 3; yield was measured in each of the 3 yr, and soil and crop growth properties were measured after 2 and 3 yr. Variation in soil texture across the experimental plots allowed us to partly assess the effects of clay content on the soil and crop response to compaction. Compaction substantially reduced plant growth and productivity; yields were reduced by up to 2.7 Mg ha −1 (33%) and dry matter by 4.1 Mg ha −1 (26%) in compacted soils. Avoiding compaction for a year appeared to allow crop growth and yields to recover. For example, grain yield after two consecutive years of compaction (5.21 Mg ha −1 ) was significantly lower than after 1 yr of compaction followed by no compaction (7.59 Mg ha −1 ). Compaction increased soil strength near the bottom of the plow layer, where a carryover effect of compaction was apparent. Compaction‐induced yield reductions were greatest on soils with more clay and were attributed to adverse soil physical conditions rather than limited N fertility.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compaction reduced corn yield by up to 2.7 Mg ha −1 (33%).

Treatment
compacted soilse0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
2.7 Mg ha −1 (33%)e0

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 were reduced by up to 2.7 Mg ha −1 (33%) and dry matter by 4.1 Mg ha −1 (26%) in compacted soils.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 974–1078 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn ( Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 264–283 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compaction reduced corn dry matter by 4.1 Mg ha −1 (26%).

Treatment
compacted soilse0
Outcome
dry mattere0
Direction
reducede0
Value
4.1 Mg ha −1 (26%)e0

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 were reduced by up to 2.7 Mg ha −1 (33%) and dry matter by 4.1 Mg ha −1 (26%) in compacted soils.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 974–1078 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn ( Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 264–283 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn grain yield after two consecutive compaction years was lower than after one year followed by no compaction.

Treatment
two consecutive years of compactione0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Value
5.21 Mg ha −1e0
Qualifier
7.59 Mg ha −1e0
Comparator
1 yr of compaction followed by no compactione0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“grain yield after two consecutive years of compaction (5.21 Mg ha −1 ) was significantly lower than after 1 yr of compaction followed by no compaction (7.59 Mg ha −1 ).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1176–1344 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compaction increased soil strength near the bottom of the plow layer.

Treatment
Compactione0
Outcome
soil strengthe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxonOrgan / stageComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Compaction increased soil strength near the bottom of the plow layer, where a carryover effect of compaction was apparent.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1345–1467 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compaction-related corn yield reductions were greatest on soils with more clay.

Outcome
yield reductionse0
Direction
greateste0
Setting
soils with more claye0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Compaction‐induced yield reductions were greatest on soils with more clay”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1468–1541 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attributed compaction-related yield reductions to adverse soil physical conditions.

Outcome
yield reductionse0
Qualifier
adverse soil physical conditionse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Compaction‐induced yield reductions were greatest on soils with more clay and were attributed to adverse soil physical conditions rather than limited N fertility.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1468–1630 · 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. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

1,095 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.