Abstract
Abstract Losses of cyanazine (2‐[[4‐chloro‐6‐(ethylamino)‐ s ‐triazin‐2‐yl]amino]‐2‐methylpropionitrile) in runoff from untilled soil planted to corn ( Zea mays L.) were compared with losses from conventionally planted corn on a 14% slope in the growing seasons of 1977 through 1979. The no‐tillage systems consisted of corn planted into corn stover residue and into “living mulches” of birdsfoot trefoil ( Lotus corniculatus ) and crownvetch ( Coronilla varia L.). The no‐tillage systems reduced runoff, erosion, and herbicide movement. For example, runoff from conventional tillage ranged from 5.5 to 22% of the runoff‐producing rainfall. Soil loss from the same system ranged from 4.4 to 32.2 Mg/ha. On the other hand, runoff from the no‐tillage systems ranged from 0.07 to 2.5% of the runoff‐producing rainfall, while soil losses ranged from 0 to 1.1 Mg/ha. Transport of cyanazine in water runoff and entrained sediment from tilled areas totaled 257.0, 16.0, and 32.7 g/ha for the respective growing seasons, which represented 5.71, 0.73, and 1.48% of the amount applied yearly [4.5 kg active ingredient (ai)/ha—1977; 2.2 kg ai/ha—1978, 1979]. In the same years, cyanazine losses from no‐tillage areas were 6.5–33.7 g/ha, 0.1–1.8 g/ha, and 1.6–3.3 g/ha at similarly applied rates. Collectively, these represented losses ranging from < 0.01 to 0.75% of sprayed levels. Using conventional tillage as a reference treatment, untilled surfaces reduced runoff from 86.3 to 98.7%, soil losses from 96.7 to 100%, and cyanazine losses from 84.9 to 99.4% over the three growing seasons. In general, the “living mulch” surfaces were more effective in retarding erosion than the corn stover residue surfaces. Corn grain yields were not significantly reduced by “living mulches” when adequate legume suppression was obtained with herbicide treatments.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage reduced runoff relative to conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- untilled surfacese0
- Outcome
- runoffe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 86.3 to 98.7%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Using conventional tillage as a reference treatment, untilled surfaces reduced runoff from 86.3 to 98.7%”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage reduced soil losses relative to conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“untilled surfaces reduced runoff from 86.3 to 98.7%, soil losses from 96.7 to 100%”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage reduced cyanazine losses relative to conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“untilled surfaces reduced runoff from 86.3 to 98.7%, soil losses from 96.7 to 100%, and cyanazine losses from 84.9 to 99.4%”
Claim · model-written summary
Living mulch retarded erosion more effectively than corn stover residue.
- Treatment
- “living mulch” surfacese0
- Outcome
- retarding erosione0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- corn stover residue surfacese0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the “living mulch” surfaces were more effective in retarding erosion than the corn stover residue surfaces.”
Claim · model-written summary
Living mulches did not significantly reduce corn grain yield when legume suppression was adequate.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- “living mulches”e0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- not significantly reducede0
- Qualifier
- adequate legume suppressione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Corn grain yields were not significantly reduced by “living mulches” when adequate legume suppression was obtained with herbicide treatments.”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 330 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 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.