Paper · 2018 · Sustainability

Soil Physical Properties and Soybean Yield as Influenced by Long-Term Tillage Systems and Cover Cropping in the Midsouth USA

Amin Nouri; Jaehoon Lee; Xinhua Yin; et al.

8
claims
25
verbatim quotes
39
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A better understanding of the effect of long-term tillage management on soil properties and yield is essential for sustainable food production. This research aimed to evaluate the 37-year impact of different tillage systems and cover cropping on soil hydro-physical properties at 0–15 and 15–30 cm, as well as on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] yield. The long-term experiment was located in Jackson, TN, and the different treatments involved in this study were no-tillage (NT), disk (DP), chisel (CP), moldboard plow (MP), and no-tillage with winter wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.)] cover crop (NTW). Forty-five days after the tillage operation, MP showed a comparable bulk density (BD) with NT, NTW, and CP at 0–15 cm depth. At surface depth, No-tillage systems increased cone penetration resistance (PR) by 12% compared with the reduced tillage systems, and 47% relative to MP. Wet aggregate stability (WAS) at surface depth was 27% and 36% greater for NT systems than for reduced and conventional tillage systems, respectively. Similarly, the geometric mean diameter (GMD) of aggregates was significantly higher under NT and NTW. However, water infiltration and field-saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs) did not differ significantly among tillage systems. The greatest soybean yield was obtained from CP and DP, producing 10% higher yield than NTW. Overall, 37 years of no-tillage, with or without simplified cover cropping did not result in a consistent improvement in soybean yield and soil physical properties with the exception of having improved soil aggregation.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The bulk density (BD) under MP was comparable.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
MPe0
Outcome
bulk density (BD)e0
Direction
comparablee0
Comparator
NT, NTW, and CPe0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“MP showed a comparable bulk density (BD) with NT, NTW, and CP at 0–15 cm depth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–723 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The cone penetration resistance (PR) under No-tillage systems was increased by 12%.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
No-tillage systemse0
Outcome
cone penetration resistance (PR)e0
Direction
increasede0
Value
12%e0
Comparator
reduced tillage systemse0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“No-tillage systems increased cone penetration resistance (PR) by 12% compared with the reduced tillage systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 743–853 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The cone penetration resistance (PR) under No-tillage systems was increased by 47%.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
No-tillage systemse0
Outcome
cone penetration resistance (PR)e0
Direction
increasede0
Value
47%e0
Comparator
MPe0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“No-tillage systems increased cone penetration resistance (PR) by 12% compared with the reduced tillage systems, and 47% relative to MP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 743–877 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Wet aggregate stability (WAS) under NT systems was greater by 27%.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
NT systemse0
Outcome
Wet aggregate stability (WAS)e0
Direction
greatere0
Value
27%e0
Comparator
reduced tillage systemse2
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“Wet aggregate stability (WAS) at surface depth was 27% and 36% greater for NT systems than for reduced and conventional tillage systems, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 879–1028 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
e2

“No-tillage systems increased cone penetration resistance (PR) by 12% compared with the reduced tillage systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 743–853 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Wet aggregate stability (WAS) under NT systems was greater by 36%.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
NT systemse0
Outcome
Wet aggregate stability (WAS)e0
Direction
greatere0
Value
36%e0
Comparator
conventional tillage systemse0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“Wet aggregate stability (WAS) at surface depth was 27% and 36% greater for NT systems than for reduced and conventional tillage systems, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 879–1028 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The geometric mean diameter (GMD) of aggregates under NT and NTW was higher.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
NT and NTWe0
Outcome
geometric mean diameter (GMD) of aggregatese0
Direction
highere0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“the geometric mean diameter (GMD) of aggregates was significantly higher under NT and NTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1130 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The water infiltration and field-saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs) under tillage systems was did not differ.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
tillage systemse0
Outcome
water infiltration and field-saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs)e0
Direction
did not differe0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“water infiltration and field-saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs) did not differ significantly among tillage systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1141–1259 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The soybean yield under CP and DP was higher by 10%.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
CP and DPe0
Outcome
soybean yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
10%e0
Comparator
NTWe0
Setting
Jackson, TNe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–36 · show in text ↑
e0

“The greatest soybean yield was obtained from CP and DP, producing 10% higher yield than NTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1261–1352 · show in text ↑
e1

“Jackson, TN”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–403 · show in text ↑

tillage · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ

84 papers: 52 positive, 32 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

80 papers more in this group

See all 84 papers →

tillage · soil: physics · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 24 positive, 12 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 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.