Abstract
Abstract Conservation tillage methods are needed for grain production on the sloping, erodible soils of the southern Appalachian mountains. The purpose of this study was to determine rainfed no‐till corn ( Zea mays L.) production in viable tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) sods relative to conventional tillage and complete kill no‐tillage systems. Main plot treatments were: (i) conventional tillage of fescue sod in the first year followed by no‐till planted rye in the second and third years (CT); (ii) no‐till planting in completely killed tall fescue, then in killed no‐till planted rye (NT 100 ); (iii) no‐till planting in a 0.41‐m wide killed strip of tall fescue (NT 40 ); and (iv) no‐till planting in a 0.20‐m wide killed strip of tall fescue (NT 20 ). Subplot treatments consisted of 145 or 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1 . Adequacy of mineral nutrition for corn was evaluated by plant analysis. The experiment was conducted on a Tate loam soil (fine‐loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult) with a 5 to 15% slope. No‐till corn production (NT 100 ) was highly successful at both N levels and yielded comparable to conventional tillage. Winter‐spring forage production was comparable whether the forage was no‐till planted rye or the remaining viable tall fescue. Competitive effects of a corn crop at 290 kg N ha −1 resulted in less summer forage for fall utilization. NT 40 resulted in slightly reduced corn and forage production and soil erosion control at 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1 . Competition for water, N, and K limited the effectiveness of the NT 20 treatment for no‐till corn production under southern Appalachian conditions.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Complete-kill no-till corn yielded comparably to conventional tillage at both nitrogen levels.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- NT 100e0
- Outcome
- corn productione0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐till corn production (NT 100 ) was highly successful at both N levels and yielded comparable to conventional tillage.”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter-spring forage production was comparable between no-till planted rye and remaining viable tall fescue.
- Taxon
- tall fescue
Lolium arundinaceume0 - Treatment
- no‐till planted ryee0
- Outcome
- Winter‐spring forage productione0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Comparator
- remaining viable tall fescuee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Winter‐spring forage production was comparable whether the forage was no‐till planted rye or the remaining viable tall fescue.”
Claim · model-written summary
At 290 kg nitrogen per hectare, corn competition resulted in less summer forage for fall use.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- summer foragee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Setting
- 290 kg N ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Competitive effects of a corn crop at 290 kg N ha −1 resulted in less summer forage for fall utilization.”
Claim · model-written summary
At 290 kg nitrogen per hectare, the 0.41 m killed-strip treatment slightly reduced corn production.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NT 40e0
- Outcome
- corne0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT 40 resulted in slightly reduced corn and forage production and soil erosion control at 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1 .”
Claim · model-written summary
At 290 kg nitrogen per hectare, the 0.41 m killed-strip treatment slightly reduced forage production.
- Taxon
- Tall FescueLolium arundinaceumt0
- Treatment
- NT 40e0
- Outcome
- forage productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT 40 resulted in slightly reduced corn and forage production and soil erosion control at 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1 .”
t0“Tall Fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
At 290 kg nitrogen per hectare, the 0.41 m killed-strip treatment slightly reduced soil erosion control.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NT 40e0
- Outcome
- soil erosion controle0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT 40 resulted in slightly reduced corn and forage production and soil erosion control at 290 kg N ha −1 yr −1 .”
Claim · model-written summary
Competition for water, nitrogen and potassium limited 0.20 m killed-strip no-till corn production.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Material
- water, N, and Ke0
- Outcome
- effectiveness of the NT 20 treatmente0
- Setting
- southern Appalachian conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Competition for water, N, and K limited the effectiveness of the NT 20 treatment for no‐till corn production under southern Appalachian conditions.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- 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.