Abstract
Energy used for tillage is an input with a high impact on the cost of crop production; it is desirable to till the soil using minimum energy. The objective of this study was to compare the specific energy expenditure, effect on soil bulk density, and forage yield of maize, by three tillage systems: Disk plow/Disk Harrow/planter (DDP), Chisel plow/Disk harrow/planter (CHDP) and No-Tillage (NT). Energy was measured for tillage operations in the summer season of 2013, 2016, and 2017. Bulk density in 2013 and 2016. Yield in 2013 and 2014. The variables of drawbar force (kN), working speed (m s−1), width (m), depth (m), fuel consumption (L ha−1), bulk density (g cm−3), and dry matter yield (Mg ha−1) were measured. Results showed that there were significant differences in the amount of energy used per ha; DDP used an average of 379.75 MJ, CHDP 135.01 MJ, and NT 26.43 MJ. The average energy applied to the soil mass for each system was 400 J kg−1 for DDP, 255.13 J kg−1 for CHDP, and for NT was 237.8 J kg−1. The overall energy efficiency was; 18.23% for DDP, 6.88% for CHDP, and 4.77% for N. The bulk density decreased significantly after three years for NT. There were no significant differences in dry matter yield. In the semiarid condition of Mexico, CHDP and NT are options for saving from 64% to 93% of energy, compared with DDP.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
DDP used an average of 379.75 MJ of energy per hectare.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DDP used an average of 379.75 MJ, CHDP 135.01 MJ, and NT 26.43 MJ”
e1“significant differences in the amount of energy used per ha”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CHDP used an average of 135.01 MJ of energy per hectare.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DDP used an average of 379.75 MJ, CHDP 135.01 MJ, and NT 26.43 MJ”
e1“energy used per ha”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NT used an average of 26.43 MJ of energy per hectare.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DDP used an average of 379.75 MJ, CHDP 135.01 MJ, and NT 26.43 MJ”
e1“energy used per ha”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DDP applied 400 J kg−1 to the soil mass.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“400 J kg−1 for DDP, 255.13 J kg−1 for CHDP, and for NT was 237.8 J kg−1”
e1“The average energy applied to the soil mass”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CHDP applied 255.13 J kg−1 to the soil mass.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“400 J kg−1 for DDP, 255.13 J kg−1 for CHDP, and for NT was 237.8 J kg−1”
e1“The average energy applied to the soil mass”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NT applied 237.8 J kg−1 to the soil mass.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“400 J kg−1 for DDP, 255.13 J kg−1 for CHDP, and for NT was 237.8 J kg−1”
e1“The average energy applied to the soil mass”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DDP had 18.23% overall energy efficiency.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18.23% for DDP, 6.88% for CHDP, and 4.77% for N”
e1“The overall energy efficiency”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CHDP had 6.88% overall energy efficiency.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18.23% for DDP, 6.88% for CHDP, and 4.77% for N”
e1“The overall energy efficiency”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The system labeled N had 4.77% overall energy efficiency.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18.23% for DDP, 6.88% for CHDP, and 4.77% for N”
e1“The overall energy efficiency”
e2“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NT significantly decreased bulk density after three years.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The bulk density decreased significantly after three years for NT”
e1“forage yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter yield did not differ significantly among tillage systems.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in dry matter yield”
e1“forage yield of maize”
e2“three tillage systems: Disk plow/Disk Harrow/planter (DDP), Chisel plow/Disk harrow/planter (CHDP) and No-Tillage (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify CHDP and NT as options to save 64% to 93% energy compared with DDP in semiarid Mexico.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the semiarid condition of Mexico, CHDP and NT are options for saving from 64% to 93% of energy, compared with DDP”
e1“forage yield of maize”
The same questions in other 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 →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.