Abstract
Abstract Reduced tillage is often recommended to decrease soil degradation and erosion associated with intensive row cropping. This study assessed the effects of different tillage and crop residue levels on corn ( Zea mays L.) yields and related factors on a 2.4‐ha site in southwestern Quebec over a 3‐yr period. The soil, a Typic Endoaquent, consisted of sandy loam or loamy sand (mean depth, 46 cm) overlying clay, with subsurface drains at the 1.2‐m depth. Treatments, begun in fall 1991, consisted of no‐till (NT), reduced tillage (RT; disked in fall and spring), and conventional tillage (CT; moldboard‐plowed in fall, disked in spring), in combination with two crop‐residue levels: no residue (− R; grain and stover removed at harvest, as for silage corn) and with residue (+ R; stover left on site at harvest, as for grain corn). High crop‐residue mulches resulted from NT ÷ R (77–97% of soil surface covered), RT + R (45–92%), and at times NT −R (8–35%), potentially protecting the soil from erosive forces. Seedling emergence was delayed (1992, 1993) or partly suppressed (1994) in NT + R, and was also delayed in CT + R in 1992 and 1993, and in CT−R and RT ÷ R in 1993. Final populations were affected only in 1994. In − R (silage) plots, yields with NT and RT were either greater (1992) or the same as their CT counterparts. On + R (grain) plots, grain, stover, and total yields were lower with NT in 1992 and 1994, due in part to difficulties in planting through the residue mulch, while RT reduced grain, stover, and total yields in 1992 and stover and total yields in 1993. Thus, for silage‐corn production, NT and RT may offer economically viable alternatives to CT, although the use of disking for a RT system provides almost no protective residue cover. In continuous grain corn, high residue buildup with NT and RT requires special attention to seeding technique or yield losses may result.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with residue and reduced tillage with residue produced high soil cover.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- NT ÷ Re0
- Outcome
- soil surface coverede0
- Direction
- Highe0
- Value
- 77–97%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High crop‐residue mulches resulted from NT ÷ R (77–97% of soil surface covered), RT + R (45–92%)”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
RT with residue covered 45–92% of soil surface.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- RT + Re0
- Outcome
- soil surface coverede1
- Value
- 45–92%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RT + R (45–92%)”
e1“soil surface covered”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with residue delayed emergence in 1992 and 1993 and partly suppressed it in 1994.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- NT + Re0
- Outcome
- Seedling emergencee0
- Direction
- delayede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seedling emergence was delayed (1992, 1993) or partly suppressed (1994) in NT + R”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
CT with residue delayed emergence in 1992 and 1993.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- CT + Re0
- Outcome
- Seedling emergencee1
- Direction
- delayede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was also delayed in CT + R in 1992 and 1993”
e1“Seedling emergence”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Final plant populations differed only in 1994.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- Final populationse0
- Qualifier
- only in 1994e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Final populations were affected only in 1994”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
In no-residue plots, no-till and reduced tillage yields exceeded conventional tillage in 1992 and matched it otherwise.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- NT and RTe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- 1992e0
- Comparator
- CT counterpartse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In − R (silage) plots, yields with NT and RT were either greater (1992) or the same as their CT counterparts”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
With residue, no-till reduced grain, stover and total yields in 1992 and 1994.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- grain, stover, and total yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- 1992 and 1994e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On + R (grain) plots, grain, stover, and total yields were lower with NT in 1992 and 1994”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
With residue, reduced tillage lowered grain, stover and total yields in 1992.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- grain, stover, and total yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 1992e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RT reduced grain, stover, and total yields in 1992”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
With residue, reduced tillage lowered stover and total yields in 1993.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- RTe1
- Outcome
- stover and total yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stover and total yields in 1993”
e1“RT reduced grain, stover, and total yields in 1992 and stover and total yields in 1993”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider no-till and reduced tillage viable for silage corn.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- NT and RT may offer economically viable alternatives to CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for silage‐corn production, NT and RT may offer economically viable alternatives to CT”
t0“Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise attention to seeding technique under continuous grain corn with high residue.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- special attention to seeding techniquee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In continuous grain corn, high residue buildup with NT and RT requires special attention to seeding technique or yield losses may result”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
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
- no effect
- no effect
- 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.