Abstract
In order to study the effect of tillage and nutrient management practices on soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, depth-wise distribution of soil aggregates and yield of the soybean and wheat crops, a field experiment was conducted during 2005–2007 at the experimental farm of the Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal with two tillage treatments namely, no-tillage (NT) and conventional tillage (CT) and five nutrient management practices, such as NPK, NPK+FYM (farmyard manure), NPK+WR (wheat residue), FYM alone and WR alone. The results indicated that SOC concentration of the top 15 cm soil depth and SOC stock of the top 30 cm soil increased significantly under NT compared to CT. Soil organic C stock of the top 30 cm soil was 9.2 per cent higher under NT compared to CT practice. The proportion of macroaggregates (> 250 μm) was also increased by 6.1 and 2.7 per cent, respectively under NT compared to CT system in 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil layers. However, the proportion of microaggregates (53–250 μm) did not show any significant difference in both layers. Among the nutrient management treatments, SOC concentration and relative proportion of macroaggregation was significantly higher in all four treatments where organic matter in the form of either FYM or wheat residues were added compared with NPK treatment in the 0–5 and 5–15 cm layers. The proportion of macroaggregation in organic matter applied plots was 5.2 and 4.5 per cent, higher in 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil layers, respectively compared with the NPK after two cropping cycles. Both the tillage and nutrient treatment differences on SOC concentration and proportion of macroaggregates were not significant in the 15–30 cm soil layer. Soil water storage in the profile did not vary significantly among the tillage treatments during kharif season of 2006. However, profile water storage in NPK, FYM and NPK+FYM was less than the other two nutrient treatments during the later phase of soybean season. The tillage treatments did not show significant effect on yield of both the soybean and wheat crops. Among the nutrient treatments, both soybean and wheat yields were highest in NPK+FYM treated plots and were lowest in the plots under WR alone. The study indicated that short-term no tillage system could improve soil aggregation and SOC concentration of Vertisols in 0–15 cm soil layer while maintaining the yield level similar with the conventional tillage system. Addition of organics along with NPK increased the SOC concentration and aggregation of the soil up to 15 cm soil depth and maintained a higher yield level. The tillage and fertilization treatments did not show any significant interaction effect on crop yields.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage significantly increased topsoil SOC concentration and stock over conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“SOC concentration of the top 15 cm soil depth and SOC stock of the top 30 cm soil increased significantly under NT compared to CT.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage raised top 30 cm soil organic carbon stock by 9.2 percent over conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Soil organic C stock of the top 30 cm soil was 9.2 per cent higher under NT compared to CT practice.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased macroaggregate proportion by 6.1 percent in the 0–5 cm layer.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of macroaggregates (> 250 μm) was also increased by 6.1 and 2.7 per cent, respectively under NT compared to CT system in 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil layers.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased macroaggregate proportion by 2.7 percent in the 5–15 cm layer.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of macroaggregates (> 250 μm) was also increased by 6.1 and 2.7 per cent, respectively under NT compared to CT system in 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil layers.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Microaggregate proportions did not differ significantly by tillage in either layer.
Verbatim
e0“the proportion of microaggregates (53–250 μm) did not show any significant difference in both layers.”
e1“SOC concentration of the top 15 cm soil depth and SOC stock of the top 30 cm soil increased significantly under NT compared to CT.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic matter nutrient treatments raised SOC concentration and macroaggregation relative to NPK in the upper two layers.
Verbatim
e0“SOC concentration and relative proportion of macroaggregation was significantly higher in all four treatments where organic matter in the form of either FYM or wheat residues were added compared with NPK treatment in the 0–5 and 5–15 cm layers.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic matter application raised macroaggregation by 5.2 percent in the 0–5 cm layer.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of macroaggregation in organic matter applied plots was 5.2 and 4.5 per cent, higher in 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil layers, respectively compared with the NPK after two cropping cycles.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic matter application raised macroaggregation by 4.5 percent in the 5–15 cm layer.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of macroaggregation in organic matter applied plots was 5.2 and 4.5 per cent, higher in 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil layers, respectively compared with the NPK after two cropping cycles.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and nutrients did not significantly differ in SOC concentration and macroaggregates at 15–30 cm.
- Taxon
- Soybean-Wheatt0
- Treatment
- tillage and nutrient treatmente0
- Outcome
- SOC concentration and proportion of macroaggregatese0
- Direction
- not significante0
- Qualifier
- 15–30 cm soil layere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Both the tillage and nutrient treatment differences on SOC concentration and proportion of macroaggregates were not significant in the 15–30 cm soil layer.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not significantly change profile soil water storage during the 2006 kharif season.
- Taxon
- Soybean-Wheatt0
- Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Soil water storage in the profilee0
- Direction
- did not vary significantlye0
- Qualifier
- kharif season of 2006e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Soil water storage in the profile did not vary significantly among the tillage treatments during kharif season of 2006.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK, FYM and NPK+FYM had less profile water storage than the other two nutrient treatments late in the soybean season.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- NPK, FYM and NPK+FYMe0
- Outcome
- profile water storagee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- later phase of soybean seasone0
- Comparator
- the other two nutrient treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“profile water storage in NPK, FYM and NPK+FYM was less than the other two nutrient treatments during the later phase of soybean season.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not significantly affect soybean and wheat yields.
- Taxon
- soybean and wheat cropsGlycine max
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not show significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The tillage treatments did not show significant effect on yield of both the soybean and wheat crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean and wheat yields were highest with NPK+FYM.
- Taxon
- soybean and wheatGlycine maxTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NPK+FYMe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both soybean and wheat yields were highest in NPK+FYM treated plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean and wheat yields were lowest with wheat residue alone.
- Taxon
- soybean and wheatGlycine maxTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- WR alonee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both soybean and wheat yields were highest in NPK+FYM treated plots and were lowest in the plots under WR alone.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and fertilization had no significant interaction for crop yields.
- Taxon
- Soybean-Wheatt0
- Treatment
- tillage and fertilization treatmentse0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- did not show any significant interaction effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The tillage and fertilization treatments did not show any significant interaction effect on crop yields.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 papers →fertilization · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1,020 papers in the same direction as this paper · 155 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
1,188 papers more in this group
See all 1,192 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
3,434 papers more in this group
See all 3,438 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.