Abstract
Abstract Though it appears that the surface accumulation of soil nutrients and the shallower distribution of roots is not detrimental to crop growth and yield under no‐tillage management, supportive data with respect to nutrient uptake are scarce. A field plot study was conducted over 3 yr utilizing four tillage treatments: (i) conventional tillage (moldboard plow); (ii) no‐tillage (coulter); (iii) no‐tillage with shallow (10 to 15 cm) in‐row chisel; and (iv) no‐tillage with deep (30 to 45 cm) in‐row chisel. The objective was to determine the influence of tillage on nutrient uptake and yield of corn by: (i) measuring changes in distribution of soil nutrients; (ii) determining the nutrient status of corn plants; (iii) measuring rubidium (Rb) uptake by corn plants when Rb was placed at various row positions and depths in the soil profile; and (iv) measuring grain yields. No‐tillage treatments resulted in a redistribution and concentration of soil nutrients at the soil surface, compared with conventional tillage. However, the nutrient status of plants grown under no‐tillage management was equal or superior to those grown by conventional tillage. Furthermore, the activity of roots and the extraction of water and nutrients, as evidenced by Rb uptake, was greater for no‐tillage compared with conventional tillage. No‐tillage, whether in‐row chisel was included or not, resulted in larger plants and greater grain yields. No evidence was obtained that would support deeper placement of nutrients or in‐row chisel operations to improve subsoil rooting under no‐tillage.
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
No tillage concentrated soil nutrients at the surface compared with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- No‐tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- soil nutrients at the soil surfacee0
- Direction
- concentratione0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage treatments resulted in a redistribution and concentration of soil nutrients at the soil surface, compared with conventional tillage.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn nutrient status under no tillage equaled or exceeded conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- no‐tillage managemente0
- Outcome
- nutrient statuse0
- Direction
- equal or superiore0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the nutrient status of plants grown under no‐tillage management was equal or superior to those grown by conventional tillage.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased activity of roots relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- no‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- activity of rootse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the activity of roots and the extraction of water and nutrients, as evidenced by Rb uptake, was greater for no‐tillage compared with conventional tillage.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased extraction of water and nutrients relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- no‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- extraction of water and nutrientse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the activity of roots and the extraction of water and nutrients, as evidenced by Rb uptake, was greater for no‐tillage compared with conventional tillage.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage with or without in row chiseling increased plants.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- No‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- plantse0
- Direction
- largere0
- Qualifier
- whether in‐row chisel was included or note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage, whether in‐row chisel was included or not, resulted in larger plants and greater grain yields.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage with or without in row chiseling increased grain yields.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- No‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- whether in‐row chisel was included or note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage, whether in‐row chisel was included or not, resulted in larger plants and greater grain yields.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
The results did not support deeper nutrient placement for improving subsoil rooting under no tillage.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- deeper placement of nutrientse0
- Qualifier
- to improve subsoil rooting under no‐tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No evidence was obtained that would support deeper placement of nutrients or in‐row chisel operations to improve subsoil rooting under no‐tillage.”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
The results did not support in row chiseling for improving subsoil rooting under no tillage.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- in‐row chisel operationse0
- Qualifier
- to improve subsoil rooting under no‐tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No evidence was obtained that would support deeper placement of nutrients or in‐row chisel operations to improve subsoil rooting under no‐tillage.”
t0“Corn”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- 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.