Abstract
This work aimed to evaluate the impact of tillage systems on chemical and physical soil attributes and on soybean root growth. The treatments were: conventional tillage (CT), escarification up to 20 cm (E20), escarification up to 30 cm (E30) and no-tillage (NT). A natural Forest adjacent to the experiment area was used as reference. Treatments were arranged in a complete randomized blocks design with four replicates. Chemical and physical soil attributes were evaluated from soil samples collected at 0-5; 5-10; 10-20 and 20-40 cm depths and root system was evaluated at 0-20 and 20-40 cm. At 0-5 cm, NT system showed higher bulk density (p<0.05) than E30 and CT systems. Phosphorus and calcium contents were also higher (p<0.05) at NT than at CT at 0-5 and 5-10 cm. Exchangeable aluminum content at surface (0- 5 and 5-10 cm) was lower at NT (0.16 and 0.21 cmolc.dm -3 , respectively) and E20 (0.18 and 0.24 cmolc.dm -3 ) which is associated to higher stocks of total organic carbon observed in these treatments. For all variables, the soil under cerrado native Forest showed the lower nutrients contents indicating the chemical poverty of these soils. No dif ferences were observed in soybean root density. However , in both depths, the higher lenght root was observed in the E30 treatment. In this treatment, 77% of root lenght was observed at 0-20 cm d. NT and E30 treatments showed an increase in soil quality but they did not influence soybean root growth.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage (NT) gave higher soil bulk density at 0-5 cm than E30 and CT systems.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- NT systeme1
- Outcome
- bulk densitye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- p<0.05e1
- Comparator
- E30 and CT systemse1
- Setting
- cerrado of Maranhão Statet1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
t1“cerrado of Maranhão State”
e1“At 0-5 cm, NT system showed higher bulk density (p<0.05) than E30 and CT systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus and calcium contents were higher under NT than under CT at 0-5 and 5-10 cm.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NTe2
- Outcome
- Phosphorus and calcium contentse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Qualifier
- p<0.05e2
- Comparator
- CTe2
- Setting
- cerrado of Maranhão Statet1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
t1“cerrado of Maranhão State”
e2“Phosphorus and calcium contents were also higher (p<0.05) at NT than at CT at 0-5 and 5-10 cm”
Claim · model-written summary
Exchangeable aluminum content at the surface was lower under NT (0.16 and 0.21 cmolc.dm -3 ).
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- Exchangeable aluminum contente3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Value
- 0.16 and 0.21 cmolc.dm -3e3
- Qualifier
- at surface (0- 5 and 5-10 cm)e3
- Setting
- cerrado of Maranhão Statet1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
t1“cerrado of Maranhão State”
e3“Exchangeable aluminum content at surface (0- 5 and 5-10 cm) was lower at NT (0.16 and 0.21 cmolc.dm -3 , respectively) and E20 (0.18 and 0.24 cmolc.dm -3 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Exchangeable aluminum content at the surface was lower under E20 (0.18 and 0.24 cmolc.dm -3 ).
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- E20e3
- Outcome
- Exchangeable aluminum contente3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Value
- 0.18 and 0.24 cmolc.dm -3e3
- Qualifier
- at surface (0- 5 and 5-10 cm)e3
- Setting
- cerrado of Maranhão Statet1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
t1“cerrado of Maranhão State”
e3“Exchangeable aluminum content at surface (0- 5 and 5-10 cm) was lower at NT (0.16 and 0.21 cmolc.dm -3 , respectively) and E20 (0.18 and 0.24 cmolc.dm -3 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher stocks of total organic carbon are associated with the NT and E20 treatments.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- these treatmentse4
- Outcome
- stocks of total organic carbone4
- Direction
- highere4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
e4“which is associated to higher stocks of total organic carbon observed in these treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil under cerrado native Forest had lower nutrient contents than the cultivated treatments.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- nutrients contentse5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Setting
- cerrado native Foreste5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
t1“cerrado of Maranhão State”
e5“For all variables, the soil under cerrado native Forest showed the lower nutrients contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean root density did not differ among the tillage treatments.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- conventional tillage (CT), escarification up to 20 cm (E20), escarification up to 30 cm (E30) and no-tillage (NT)e7
- Outcome
- soybean root densitye6
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
e6“No dif ferences were observed in soybean root density”
e7“The treatments were: conventional tillage (CT), escarification up to 20 cm (E20), escarification up to 30 cm (E30) and no-tillage (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Root length was higher in the E30 treatment in both depths.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- E30e5
- Outcome
- lenght roote5
- Direction
- highere5
- Qualifier
- in both depthse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
e5“in both depths, the higher lenght root was observed in the E30 treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
In the E30 treatment, 77% of root length was at 0-20 cm depth.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- root lenghte6
- Value
- 77%e6
- Qualifier
- at 0-20 cm de6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
e6“In this treatment, 77% of root lenght was observed at 0-20 cm d”
Claim · model-written summary
NT and E30 treatments increased soil quality.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NT and E30 treatmentse7
- Outcome
- soil qualitye7
- Direction
- increasee7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
e7“NT and E30 treatments showed an increase in soil quality but they did not influence soybean root growth”
Claim · model-written summary
NT and E30 treatments did not influence soybean root growth.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NT and E30 treatmentse7
- Outcome
- soybean root growthe7
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“soybean root distribution”
e7“NT and E30 treatments showed an increase in soil quality but they did not influence soybean root growth”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 papers →tillage · quality: general · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
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.