Paper · 1986 · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Effect of Tillage on Sweet Corn Development and Yield

Kerry L. Petersen; Harry J. Mack; Dean E. Booster

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
14
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Abstract ‘Jubilee’ sweet corn ( Zea mays L.) was grown under conventional and strip tillage in 1982 and under conventional tillage, strip tillage, and no-till culture in 1983. Stand establishment was decreased by strip tillage in 1982, but was lower only in the no-till treatment in 1983. Midseason plant height in strip tillage was slightly less than in conventional tillage both years, whereas the no-till plants were much shorter than in other treatments the second year. Yields of husked ears from strip tillage were 7% and 16% lower than from conventional tillage in 1982 and 1983, respectively. In 1983, yield from the no-till treatment was 31% lower than from conventional tillage. The percentage of kernel moisture always was higher from plants in strip tillage and no-till, indicating these treatments had ears that were more immature at time of harvest than in conventional tillage. Average daily soil temperatures at the 5 cm depth for the first 30 days after planting in 1983 were highest for conventional tillage, followed by strip tillage and no-till.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage decreased stand establishment in 1982.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
strip tillagee0
Outcome
Stand establishmente0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
1982e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Stand establishment was decreased by strip tillage in 1982”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 176–234 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Only no-till had lower stand establishment in 1983.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
no-till treatmente0
Outcome
lowere0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
1983e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“was lower only in the no-till treatment in 1983”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–287 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage plants were slightly shorter than conventional tillage plants in both years.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
strip tillagee0
Outcome
Midseason plant heighte0
Direction
lesse0
Qualifier
both yearse0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Not reportedValue

Verbatim

e0

“Midseason plant height in strip tillage was slightly less than in conventional tillage both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 289–386 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till plants were much shorter than other treatments in the second year.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
no-tille0
Outcome
shortere0
Direction
shortere0
Qualifier
the second yeare0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

Not reportedValue

Verbatim

e0

“the no-till plants were much shorter than in other treatments the second year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 396–473 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage reduced husked-ear yield by 7% in 1982 versus conventional tillage.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
strip tillagee0
Outcome
Yields of husked earse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
7%e0
Qualifier
1982e0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Verbatim

e0

“Yields of husked ears from strip tillage were 7% and 16% lower than from conventional tillage in 1982 and 1983, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage reduced husked-ear yield by 16% in 1983 versus conventional tillage.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
strip tillagee0
Outcome
Yields of husked earse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
16%e0
Qualifier
1983e0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Verbatim

e0

“Yields of husked ears from strip tillage were 7% and 16% lower than from conventional tillage in 1982 and 1983, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till reduced yield by 31% in 1983 versus conventional tillage.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
no-till treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Value
31%e0
Qualifier
1983e0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Verbatim

e0

“In 1983, yield from the no-till treatment was 31% lower than from conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 601–687 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage had higher kernel moisture.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
strip tillagee0
Outcome
percentage of kernel moisturee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of kernel moisture always was higher from plants in strip tillage and no-till”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 689–781 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till had higher kernel moisture.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
no-tille0
Outcome
percentage of kernel moisturee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of kernel moisture always was higher from plants in strip tillage and no-till”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 689–781 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional tillage had the highest early soil temperature, followed by strip tillage and no-till.

Taxon
Sweet Cornt0
Treatment
conventional tillagee0
Outcome
Average daily soil temperaturese0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
first 30 days after planting in 1983e0

Verbatim

e0

“Average daily soil temperatures at the 5 cm depth for the first 30 days after planting in 1983 were highest for conventional tillage, followed by strip tillage and no-till”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 893–1064 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–31 · show in text ↑

tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

152 papers: 124 positive, 28 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 124 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

148 papers more in this group

See all 152 papers →

tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

283 papers: 196 positive, 87 negative or no effect

86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

279 papers more in this group

See all 283 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 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.