Abstract
Abstract Few studies have compared N utilization by maize ( Zea mays L.) under conventional tillage (CT) and no‐tillage (NT) in the Appalachian region. Silage production (TDM) and fertilizer N and soil N uptake, were investigated in a 3‐yr study on a Gilpin silt loam (fine‐loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult) in West Virginia previously cropped to pasture. 15 N‐depleted N fertilizer was band‐applied, within‐row, at 0, 56, 112, and 224 kg N ha −1 , 4 wk after planting. Tillage method did not affect silage production, N concentration or total N uptake at any N rate. Maximal silage production under NT (13.2 Mg ha −1 ) was calculated to require just 24 kg ha −1 more fertilizer N than under CT (12.6 Mg ha −1 ). Fertilizer N uptake (kg ha −1 ) was similarly unaffected by tillage method, with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively. Similar percentages for cumulative fertilizer N use efficiencies, which account for any labeled N carried over from year to year, suggest that there was little residuum available to the crop, particularly at near‐optimal N rates. Soil N uptake decreased by 17% with N additions below (56 kg ha −1 ) or above (224 kg ha −1 ) the optimum, but was generally unaffected by tillage method. These similarities between NT and CT for maize silage production and N use, despite using a management system contrived to show differences, emphasize the importance of edaphic and climatological factors in predicting N responses under various tillage methods. Nonetheless, these results show that reasonably high levels of silage can be produced without excessive fertilizer N requirements ( ≈ 170 kg N ha −1 ) or losses (< 50%) when pastures are converted to NT maize.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage method did not affect maize silage production, N concentration or total N uptake at any N rate.
- Treatment
- Tillage methode1
- Outcome
- silage production, N concentration or total N uptakee1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
- Qualifier
- at any N ratee1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e1“Tillage method did not affect silage production, N concentration or total N uptake at any N rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer N uptake was similarly unaffected by tillage method.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e2“Fertilizer N uptake (kg ha −1 ) was similarly unaffected by tillage method”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fertilizer N use efficiency under NT was 55% at the lowest N rate (56 kg ha −1).
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- annual fertilizer N use efficienciese3
- Value
- 55e3
- Qualifier
- at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e3“with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fertilizer N use efficiency under NT was 54% at the middle N rate (112 kg ha −1).
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- annual fertilizer N use efficienciese3
- Value
- 54e3
- Qualifier
- at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e3“with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fertilizer N use efficiency under NT was 49% at the highest N rate (224 kg ha −1).
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- annual fertilizer N use efficienciese3
- Value
- 49e3
- Qualifier
- at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e3“with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fertilizer N use efficiency under CT was 57% at the lowest N rate (56 kg ha −1).
- Treatment
- CTe3
- Outcome
- annual fertilizer N use efficienciese3
- Value
- 57e3
- Qualifier
- at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e3“with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fertilizer N use efficiency under CT was 57% at the middle N rate (112 kg ha −1).
- Treatment
- CTe3
- Outcome
- annual fertilizer N use efficienciese3
- Value
- 57e3
- Qualifier
- at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e3“with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual fertilizer N use efficiency under CT was 48% at the highest N rate (224 kg ha −1).
- Treatment
- CTe3
- Outcome
- annual fertilizer N use efficienciese3
- Value
- 48e3
- Qualifier
- at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e3“with annual fertilizer N use efficiencies (% recovery) of 55, 54, and 49% under NT, and 57, 57, and 48% under CT, at application rates of 56, 112, and 224 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximal silage production under NT was 13.2 Mg ha −1, compared with 12.6 Mg ha −1 under CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e4“Maximal silage production under NT (13.2 Mg ha −1 ) was calculated to require just 24 kg ha −1 more fertilizer N than under CT (12.6 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximal silage production under NT required 24 kg ha −1 more fertilizer N than under CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e4“Maximal silage production under NT (13.2 Mg ha −1 ) was calculated to require just 24 kg ha −1 more fertilizer N than under CT (12.6 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil N uptake decreased by 17% with N additions below or above the optimum rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e5“Soil N uptake decreased by 17% with N additions below (56 kg ha −1 ) or above (224 kg ha −1 ) the optimum, but was generally unaffected by tillage method”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil N uptake was generally unaffected by tillage method.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e5“Soil N uptake decreased by 17% with N additions below (56 kg ha −1 ) or above (224 kg ha −1 ) the optimum, but was generally unaffected by tillage method”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative fertilizer N use efficiencies were similar, suggesting little residual labeled N available to the crop, particularly at near-optimal N rates.
- Outcome
- cumulative fertilizer N use efficienciese6
- Direction
- Similare6
- Qualifier
- particularly at near‐optimal N ratese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e6“Similar percentages for cumulative fertilizer N use efficiencies, which account for any labeled N carried over from year to year, suggest that there was little residuum available to the crop, particularly at near‐optimal N rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Reasonably high silage levels can be produced without excessive fertilizer N requirements or losses when pastures are converted to NT maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Silage Utilization”
e7“Nonetheless, these results show that reasonably high levels of silage can be produced without excessive fertilizer N requirements ( ≈ 170 kg N ha −1 ) or losses (< 50%) when pastures are converted to NT maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 93 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- positive
- 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.