Abstract
The impact of sustainable reduced tillage (RT) on the physical properties of soil is well documented worldwide; however, there is no precise information about the influence of long-term RT or no-till (NT) on the soils at the boundary for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions of the Baltic states, especially on the formation of a hard-ened upper soil layer (10–15 cm in depth) — “loosening hardpan”. This study was carried out at the Research Station of Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuania from 2009–2012. The investigations were based on a long-term (since 1988) field experiment. The aim of the investigation was to ascertain the influence of reduced primary tillage on the main soil's physical properties. This study examined soils that were deep ploughing (DP), shallow ploughing (SP), deep cultivation (DC), shallow cultivation (SC), and no-till (NT). Reducing the tillage intensity to NT had no significant effect on the structural soil's composition; however, the stability of the structure of the >1 and >0.25 mm-size fractions was significantly higher in the non-reversibly tilled (DC, SC) and NT plots. The penetration resistance of the DP soils was less after primary tillage and wintering, and became similar to the NT plots at the end of the maize growth season. After primary tillage and wintering, the soil moisture content in the upper soil layer (0–5 cm depth) of the NT plots was 17–49 and 16–18% higher than that in the DP. Long-term reduction of primary tillage up to NT generally had no significant effect on the moisture content and soil bulk density of the 0–10 and 10–20 cm layers. The results showed that long-term RT stabilized the physical quality of soil. Less soil penetration resistance was established in the DP plots compared to both RT and NT, however, indicators of the formation of a uniform “loosening hardpan” layer were not found. It is summarized that long-term RT or NT systems stabilize, or may increase, the physical quality of soil in crop cultivation with low inter-row coverage potential (maize), and could be applied in semi-humid subarctic climate conditions as a good option to prevent soil degradation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Reducing tillage intensity to no-till had no significant effect on the structural composition of the soil in maize cultivation.
- Treatment
- Reducing the tillage intensity to NTe1
- Outcome
- structural soil's compositione1
- Direction
- no significant effecte1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Reducing the tillage intensity to NT had no significant effect on the structural soil's composition”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Stability of the >1 and >0.25 mm soil aggregate fractions was significantly higher in deep and shallow cultivation and no-till plots than in other plots.
- Treatment
- non-reversibly tilled (DC, SC) and NT plotse2
- Outcome
- stability of the structuree2
- Direction
- highere2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“the stability of the structure of the >1 and >0.25 mm-size fractions was significantly higher in the non-reversibly tilled (DC, SC) and NT plots”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Penetration resistance of deep-ploughed soil was lower after primary tillage and wintering in maize cultivation.
- Treatment
- DPe3
- Outcome
- penetration resistancee3
- Direction
- lesse3
- Qualifier
- after primary tillage and winteringe3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The penetration resistance of the DP soils was less after primary tillage and wintering”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture content in the upper 0–5 cm layer was 17–49 and 16–18% higher in no-till plots than in deep ploughed plots.
- Treatment
- NT plotse4
- Outcome
- soil moisture content in the upper soil layere4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 17–49 and 16–18%e4
- Comparator
- DPe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“the soil moisture content in the upper soil layer (0–5 cm depth) of the NT plots was 17–49 and 16–18% higher than that in the DP”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term reduction of primary tillage up to no-till generally had no significant effect on soil moisture content and bulk density in the 0–10 and 10–20 cm layers.
- Treatment
- Long-term reduction of primary tillage up to NTe5
- Outcome
- moisture content and soil bulk densitye5
- Direction
- no significant effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Long-term reduction of primary tillage up to NT generally had no significant effect on the moisture content and soil bulk density of the 0–10 and 10–20 cm layers”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term reduced tillage stabilized the physical quality of soil in maize cultivation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“The results showed that long-term RT stabilized the physical quality of soil”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil penetration resistance was lower in deep ploughed plots than in both reduced-tillage and no-till plots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Less soil penetration resistance was established in the DP plots compared to both RT and NT”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
No indicators of a uniform loosening hardpan layer were found in maize plots under reduced tillage.
- Outcome
- indicators of the formation of a uniform “loosening hardpan” layere1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“indicators of the formation of a uniform “loosening hardpan” layer were not found”
e0“for grain maize-growing in the semi-humid subarctic climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term reduced tillage or no-till systems could be applied in semi-humid subarctic maize cultivation as a good option to prevent soil degradation.
- Outcome
- prevent soil degradatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“long-term RT or NT systems stabilize, or may increase, the physical quality of soil in crop cultivation with low inter-row coverage potential (maize)”
e2“could be applied in semi-humid subarctic climate conditions as a good option to prevent soil degradation”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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.