Abstract
Four conservation tillage practices and two conventional tillage practices were evaluated for two years to determine their effects on soil properties (moisture content, bulk density, porosity, shear strength, cone index), weed control, germination, growth and yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril). The soil was sandy loam and classified as Typic Haplustalf of Eruwa and Odo Owa series. The conservation tillage practices were: no tillage (NT), chisel ploughing (CHP), use of a cultivator (CU) and disc ploughing once (DP). The conventional tillage practices were disc ploughing followed by harrowing (DPH) and disc ploughing followed by harrowing and ridging (DPHR). The treatments were laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. Results show that tillage practices significantly affected soil properties, weed control, germination, growth and yield of soybean. Soil strength and moisture content were significantly higher under the conservation tillage practices, whereas porosity was significantly lower. There was better crop establishment and growth under the conservation tillage practices due to the better moisture conservation under such systems. Weed control was more effective under conventional tillage practices. Over the two-year period and compared to NT, the percentage increase in yield with other tillage practices were 9.3% for CHP, 10.1% for CU, 13.7% for DP, 17.9% for DPH and 16.12% for DPHR. In overall performance, when the effect on soil properties and crop performance were considered together, the conservation tillage practices of DP, CHP and CU are recommended for the area, depending on equipment availability. The results are applicable to other regions with the same soil type. Key words: Tillage, conservation tillage, soybean production, conventional tillage. Agro-Science Vol.2(2) 2001: 26-36
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage increased soil strength and moisture content.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- conservation tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- Soil strength and moisture contente0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil strength and moisture content were significantly higher under the conservation tillage practices, whereas porosity was significantly lower.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage decreased soil porosity.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- porositye0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil strength and moisture content were significantly higher under the conservation tillage practices, whereas porosity was significantly lower.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop establishment and growth were better under conservation tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- crop establishment and growthe0
- Direction
- bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was better crop establishment and growth under the conservation tillage practices due to the better moisture conservation under such systems.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control was more effective under conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- conventional tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- Weed controle0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
Not reportedInteractorInteractor roleComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed control was more effective under conventional tillage practices.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chisel ploughing increased soybean yield 9.3% relative to no tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the two-year period and compared to NT, the percentage increase in yield with other tillage practices were 9.3% for CHP, 10.1% for CU, 13.7% for DP, 17.9% for DPH and 16.12% for DPHR.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivator tillage increased soybean yield 10.1% relative to no tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the two-year period and compared to NT, the percentage increase in yield with other tillage practices were 9.3% for CHP, 10.1% for CU, 13.7% for DP, 17.9% for DPH and 16.12% for DPHR.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Disc ploughing once increased soybean yield 13.7% relative to no tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the two-year period and compared to NT, the percentage increase in yield with other tillage practices were 9.3% for CHP, 10.1% for CU, 13.7% for DP, 17.9% for DPH and 16.12% for DPHR.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Disc ploughing and harrowing increased soybean yield 17.9% relative to no tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the two-year period and compared to NT, the percentage increase in yield with other tillage practices were 9.3% for CHP, 10.1% for CU, 13.7% for DP, 17.9% for DPH and 16.12% for DPHR.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
Disc ploughing, harrowing, and ridging increased soybean yield 16.12% relative to no tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- DPHRe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 16.12%e0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the two-year period and compared to NT, the percentage increase in yield with other tillage practices were 9.3% for CHP, 10.1% for CU, 13.7% for DP, 17.9% for DPH and 16.12% for DPHR.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend DP, CHP, or CU for the area depending on equipment availability.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Outcome
- DP, CHP and CUe0
- Qualifier
- depending on equipment availabilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the conservation tillage practices of DP, CHP and CU are recommended for the area, depending on equipment availability.”
e1“yield of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril)”
The same questions in other papers
(1S)-isoindoline-1-carboxylic acid · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
tillage · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 papers →tillage · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 100 in the opposite direction · 26 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 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.