Abstract
Mollisols (called black soil in China) are fertile and productive soils covering an area of 5,900,000 ha in northeastern China, but food production in the area is threatened by soil erosion. The objective of this study was to generate scientifically-based comparative information that can be used to help farmers improve their field management practices in order to reduce soil loss while at the same time decreasing input costs and increasing crop yields. Plot experiments to compare runoff, soil loss, crop growth, crop yield and economic margins for soybeans and corn under conventional management (CVM), deep-till management (DTM) and conservation management (CSM) were carried out in northeastern China in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Dry matter (measured aboveground) accumulation in DTM deep-till management was consistently higher than in CVM or CSM before early September, while the highest aboveground dry matter (DM) over all was obtained in CSM at maturity, which was 11.1% more than DTM or CVM. Compared to the conventional management, runoff in soybean in 2007 and 2008 was 71% and 98% less, respectively, under conservation management, and 12% less and 1% greater under deep tillage treatment. Similarly, sediment loss was 89%, 99%, and 97% less, respectively, under conservation management than under conventional management and 75% less, 72% greater, and 13% greater under deep tillage management than under conventional management. There was no significant difference in yield between deep-till management and conventional management in any year, but it was 19% (soybean, 2007) and 12.6% (soybean, 2008) higher under conservation management than under either of the other two treatments. Economic margin was 34%, and 27% higher under CSM than under CVM in 2007 and 2008 when the plots were cropped to soybean, respectively, but showed no significant difference between CVM and DTM in 2007 and 2008, or no significant difference between all treatments when corn was planted in 2009. It is apparent that conservation management can reduce soil loss, increase soybean yield and improve its profit margin on sloping fields in the black soil landscape of northeastern China.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage gave higher early aboveground dry matter than conventional or conservation management.
- Treatment
- DTM deep-till managemente0
- Outcome
- Dry matter (measured aboveground) accumulatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- before early Septembere0
- Comparator
- CVM or CSMe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter (measured aboveground) accumulation in DTM deep-till management was consistently higher than in CVM or CSM before early September”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management had the highest aboveground dry matter at maturity, 11.1% more than the alternatives.
- Organ / stage
- maturitye0
- Treatment
- CSMe0
- Outcome
- aboveground dry matter (DM)e0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 11.1%e0
- Comparator
- DTM or CVMe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the highest aboveground dry matter (DM) over all was obtained in CSM at maturity, which was 11.1% more than DTM or CVM”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management reduced soybean runoff by 71% in 2007.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- conservation managemente0
- Outcome
- runoff in soybeane0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 71%e0
- Qualifier
- 2007e0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the conventional management, runoff in soybean in 2007 and 2008 was 71% and 98% less, respectively, under conservation management”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management reduced soybean runoff by 98% in 2008.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- conservation managemente0
- Outcome
- runoff in soybeane0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 98%e0
- Qualifier
- 2008e0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the conventional management, runoff in soybean in 2007 and 2008 was 71% and 98% less, respectively, under conservation management”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage reduced soybean runoff by 12% in 2007.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- deep tillage treatmente0
- Outcome
- runoff in soybeane0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 12%e0
- Qualifier
- 2007e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“runoff in soybean in 2007 and 2008 was 71% and 98% less, respectively, under conservation management, and 12% less and 1% greater under deep tillage treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased soybean runoff by 1% in 2008.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- deep tillage treatmente0
- Outcome
- runoff in soybeane0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1%e0
- Qualifier
- 2008e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“runoff in soybean in 2007 and 2008 was 71% and 98% less, respectively, under conservation management, and 12% less and 1% greater under deep tillage treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management reduced sediment loss by 89%, 99%, and 97% across the three years.
- Treatment
- conservation managemente0
- Outcome
- sediment losse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 89%, 99%, and 97%e0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“sediment loss was 89%, 99%, and 97% less, respectively, under conservation management than under conventional management”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage reduced sediment loss by 75% in the first year.
- Treatment
- deep tillage managemente0
- Outcome
- sediment losse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 75%e0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“sediment loss was 89%, 99%, and 97% less, respectively, under conservation management than under conventional management and 75% less, 72% greater, and 13% greater under deep tillage management than under conventional management”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased sediment loss by 72% in the second year.
- Treatment
- deep tillage managemente0
- Outcome
- sediment losse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 72%e0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“sediment loss was 89%, 99%, and 97% less, respectively, under conservation management than under conventional management and 75% less, 72% greater, and 13% greater under deep tillage management than under conventional management”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased sediment loss by 13% in the third year.
- Treatment
- deep tillage managemente0
- Outcome
- sediment losse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“sediment loss was 89%, 99%, and 97% less, respectively, under conservation management than under conventional management and 75% less, 72% greater, and 13% greater under deep tillage management than under conventional management”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage and conventional management did not differ significantly in yield in any year.
- Treatment
- deep-till managemente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- conventional managemente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant difference in yield between deep-till management and conventional management in any year”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management raised soybean yield by 19% in 2007.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- conservation managemente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Comparator
- either of the other two treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was 19% (soybean, 2007) and 12.6% (soybean, 2008) higher under conservation management than under either of the other two treatments”
e1“yield between deep-till management and conventional management”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management raised soybean yield by 12.6% in 2008.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- conservation managemente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 12.6%e0
- Comparator
- either of the other two treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was 19% (soybean, 2007) and 12.6% (soybean, 2008) higher under conservation management than under either of the other two treatments”
e1“yield between deep-till management and conventional management”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management raised the soybean economic margin by 34% in 2007.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- CSMe0
- Outcome
- Economic margine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 34%e0
- Comparator
- CVMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Economic margin was 34%, and 27% higher under CSM than under CVM in 2007 and 2008 when the plots were cropped to soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation management raised the soybean economic margin by 27% in 2008.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- CSMe0
- Outcome
- Economic margine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 27%e0
- Comparator
- CVMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Economic margin was 34%, and 27% higher under CSM than under CVM in 2007 and 2008 when the plots were cropped to soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic margin did not differ significantly between conventional and deep tillage management for soybean.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“no significant difference between CVM and DTM in 2007 and 2008”
e1“Economic margin was 34%”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic margin did not differ significantly among management treatments for corn in 2009.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Economic margine1
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant difference between all treatments when corn was planted in 2009”
e1“Economic margin was 34%”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 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.