Abstract
By using large area tests,the comparison study among the changes of soil water content,agronomic character and the yield in summer soybean were carried out under no-tillage and normal tillage in previous crops of wheat.The results showed that in natural conditions,the rainfall during the whole growing period of soybean was 338.70 mm and the average soil water content was reducing by 1.06% at 0～20 cm in no-tillage than that of normal tillage,but the difference was not significant.The average water content in no-tillage soil was 0.36%,0.96% and 0.97% higher than that of normal tillage at the depth of 20～40 cm,40～60 cm and 60～80 cm,respectively,but all differences were not significant.These difference effects were not significant which no-tillage than that of normal tillage in summer soybean agronomic characters of growth period,100-seed weight,etc.In the peak water requirement period of soybean,there was a corresponding effective precipitation and the soil water content could meet the needs of soybean growth.Moreover,the average yield of no-tillage and normal tillage was 4253.6 and 4313.2 kg·ha-1,respectively.Yield of no-tillage was less than the normal tillage by 59.6 kg·ha-1,but the difference was not significant.Therefore,under natural conditions,no-tillage crops was not only could obtain almost the same yield as normal tillage,but also could save the amount of labor,prevent soil erosion,protect soil structure and eliminate the effects of plow formation on crop root growth.In summary,no-tillage crop could deserve to popularization.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage reduced average soil water content at 0～20 cm compared with normal tillage by 1.06%, a difference that was not significant.
- Taxon
- Summer Soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- no-tillagee1
- Outcome
- soil water contente1
- Direction
- reducinge1
- Value
- 1.06%e1
- Comparator
- normal tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e1“the average soil water content was reducing by 1.06% at 0～20 cm in no-tillage than that of normal tillage,but the difference was not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage soil water content at 20～40 cm was 0.36% higher than normal tillage, not significant.
- Taxon
- Summer SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-tillagee2
- Outcome
- average water contente2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.36%e2
- Qualifier
- at the depth of 20～40 cme2
- Comparator
- normal tillagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e2“The average water content in no-tillage soil was 0.36%,0.96% and 0.97% higher than that of normal tillage at the depth of 20～40 cm,40～60 cm and 60～80 cm,respectively,but all differences were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage soil water content at 40～60 cm was 0.96% higher than normal tillage, not significant.
- Taxon
- Summer SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-tillagee2
- Outcome
- average water contente2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.96%e2
- Qualifier
- 40～60 cme2
- Comparator
- normal tillagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e2“The average water content in no-tillage soil was 0.36%,0.96% and 0.97% higher than that of normal tillage at the depth of 20～40 cm,40～60 cm and 60～80 cm,respectively,but all differences were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage soil water content at 60～80 cm was 0.97% higher than normal tillage, not significant.
- Taxon
- Summer SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-tillagee2
- Outcome
- average water contente2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.97%e2
- Qualifier
- 60～80 cme2
- Comparator
- normal tillagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e2“The average water content in no-tillage soil was 0.36%,0.96% and 0.97% higher than that of normal tillage at the depth of 20～40 cm,40～60 cm and 60～80 cm,respectively,but all differences were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage did not significantly change agronomic characters such as growth period and 100-seed weight of summer soybean.
- Taxon
- summer soybeanGlycine maxe3
- Treatment
- no-tillagee3
- Outcome
- agronomic characterse3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Qualifier
- growth period,100-seed weighte3
- Comparator
- normal tillagee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“These difference effects were not significant which no-tillage than that of normal tillage in summer soybean agronomic characters of growth period,100-seed weight,etc”
Claim · model-written summary
In the peak water requirement period, soil water content could meet the needs of soybean growth.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe4
- Outcome
- soil water contente4
- Qualifier
- could meet the needs of soybean growthe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“In the peak water requirement period of soybean,there was a corresponding effective precipitation and the soil water content could meet the needs of soybean growth”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage yield was 59.6 kg·ha-1 less than normal tillage, a difference that was not significant.
- Taxon
- Summer SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-tillagee6
- Outcome
- Yielde6
- Direction
- less thane6
- Value
- 59.6 kg·ha-1e6
- Comparator
- normal tillagee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e6“Yield of no-tillage was less than the normal tillage by 59.6 kg·ha-1,but the difference was not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Average yield was 4253.6 and 4313.2 kg·ha-1 for no-tillage and normal tillage, respectively.
- Taxon
- Summer SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-tillage and normal tillagee5
- Outcome
- average yielde5
- Value
- 4253.6 and 4313.2 kg·ha-1e5
- Qualifier
- respectivelye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e5“Moreover,the average yield of no-tillage and normal tillage was 4253.6 and 4313.2 kg·ha-1,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage crop could be recommended for popularization, saving labor and preventing soil erosion while protecting soil structure.
- Taxon
- Summer SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-tillagee7
- Outcome
- popularizatione7
- Qualifier
- prevent soil erosion,protect soil structuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Summer Soybean to No-tillage and Normal Tillage”
e7“no-tillage crop could deserve to popularization”
e0“no-tillage crops was not only could obtain almost the same yield as normal tillage,but also could save the amount of labor,prevent soil erosion,protect soil structure and eliminate the effects of plow formation on crop root growth”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 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 →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.