Abstract
Producers are frequently most interested in economic comparisons of various cropping systems. We compared continuous corn ( Zea mays L.) and continuous soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] with 2‐, 3‐, and 5‐year rotations, the latter two including wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.), using either chisel plow or no‐tillage practices. Crop yield and returns to land and management were evaluated. Yields for continuous corn (C‐C‐C) were not different from those in rotation [corn‐soybean (C‐S), soybean‐wheat/soybean‐corn (S‐W/S‐C), or corn‐soybean‐alfalfa‐alfalfa‐alfalfa (C‐S‐A‐A‐A)] for either tillage practice, but rotated corn had lower nitrogen (N) inputs. Soybean yield in the 5‐year rotation was greater than for continuous soybean (S‐S‐S) in 2001 for both tillage practices, but in 2000, a tillage by rotation interaction resulted from severe crusting in S‐S‐S that reduced stand density and lowered yield for the chisel plow treatment. Wheat and alfalfa yields were not affected by tillage practice. Using average annual crop prices, the 5‐year rotation generated returns that were 100 and 158% higher than for C‐S using either no‐tillage or chisel practices. This study confirms that producers who incorporate alfalfa into their crop rotations can significantly increase returns to land and management. However, returns for the rotation including alfalfa are more realistic where a viable forage market exists.
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
Continuous corn yields were not different from those in rotation.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“continuous corn ( Zea mays L.) and continuous soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”
e1“Yields for continuous corn”
e2“were not different from those in rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotated corn had lower nitrogen inputs than continuous corn.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“continuous corn ( Zea mays L.) and continuous soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”
e1“Yields for continuous corn”
e2“rotated corn had lower nitrogen (N) inputs”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2001, soybean yield in the 5-year rotation was greater than in continuous soybean for both tillage practices.
- Taxon
- Glycine max
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- rotatione2
- Outcome
- Soybean yielde1
- Direction
- greatere2
- Qualifier
- in 2001 for both tillage practicese3
- Comparator
- continuous soybeane2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“continuous corn ( Zea mays L.) and continuous soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”
e1“Soybean yield in the”
e2“rotation was greater than for continuous soybean”
e3“in 2001 for both tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, severe crusting in continuous soybean reduced stand density and lowered yield under chisel plow tillage.
- Taxon
- Glycine maxGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- lowered yielde2
- Direction
- lowerede2
- Qualifier
- severe crustinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“continuous corn ( Zea mays L.) and continuous soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”
e1“a tillage by rotation interaction resulted from severe crusting”
e2“that reduced stand density and lowered yield for the chisel plow treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yields were not affected by tillage practice.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- tillage practicee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat and alfalfa yields were not affected by tillage practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa yields were not affected by tillage practice.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0 - Treatment
- tillage practicee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat and alfalfa yields were not affected by tillage practice”
Claim · model-written summary
The 5-year rotation generated returns 100 and 158% higher than corn-soybean under no-tillage or chisel practices.
- Treatment
- rotatione2
- Outcome
- returnse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 100 and 158%e2
- Qualifier
- Using average annual crop pricese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“continuous corn ( Zea mays L.) and continuous soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.]”
e1“Using average annual crop prices”
e2“rotation generated returns that were 100 and 158% higher than for C”
Claim · model-written summary
Producers who incorporate alfalfa into their crop rotations can significantly increase returns to land and management.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- increase returns to land and managemente0
- Qualifier
- where a viable forage market existse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“producers who incorporate alfalfa into their crop rotations can significantly increase returns to land and management”
e1“returns for the rotation including alfalfa are more realistic where a viable forage market exists”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →rotation · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
140 papers more in this group
See all 144 papers →rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 254 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.