Abstract
Despite new cultivation methods, the proportion of conventionally cultivated land is still very high in Hungary.Although these technologies demand more time, labour and fuel, they are still attractive to users because they require less professional skill and simple machinery. In Hungary, conventional tillage methods usually lead to soil deterioration, soil compaction and a decrease in organic content. These side effects have caused gradually strengthening economic and environmental problems.The technologies for those plants which are dominant on Hungarian arable lands use (winter wheat, maize, sunflower and barley) need to be improved both in the interest of environmental protection and the reduction of cultivation costs.The Department of Land Use at Debrecen University is cooperating with KITE Sc. to carry out soil tillage experiments at two pilot locations to prove tillage technologies already used in the USA.The aim of our examination is to adapt new technological developments and machinery, and to improve them on Hungarian soil for local environmental conditions. With these improved machines, the field growing of plants could be executed by less manipulation and better suited to economic and environmental needs. The most significant task is to investigate and improve the conventional cultivation replacing, new soil-protecting tillage technologies, and to apply no-till and mulch tillage systems.On the basis of the experiments’ survey data, we established that the looseness and moisture content of the soil using reduced tillage is more favourable than after using conventional technologies. The results of no-till and shallow spring tillage are behind those of winter plough or disk ripper cultivation in corn yield and production elements.To preserve moisture content in the soil, the ground clearing and sowing while simultaneously performing no-till method presents the most favourable results. The surplus moisture gained using no-till technology is equal to 40 mm precipitation.Regarding the yield of winter wheat we established that the tillage methods do not affect plant yield. Both disk ripper and conventional disc cultivation showed nearly the same harvest results (5.55 or 5.5 t/ha), where the difference is statistically hardly verifiable from the no-till method. From the individual production of corn and the number of plants planted in unit area, calculated results prove that no significant difference can be detected between the production of winter plough and disk ripper technology. Although the yield achieved with the no-till method is less than with the previously mentioned technologies, the difference is only 9-10%. We received the lowest production at shallow spring tillage.Evaluations have shown a 1.1 t/ha (13%) difference in the yield of maize, between winter tillage and the disk ripper method, in this case the traditional method resulted in higher yield. In winter tillage, the yield of maize was 1.9-2.1 t/ha (23-25%) higher than in the case of direct sowing and cultivator treatments. No significant difference could be noted between the yields of direct sowing and cultivator treatments.Our research so far has proved the industrial application of reduced tillage methods in crop cultivation technologies.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage improved soil looseness and moisture relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- reduced tillagee0
- Outcome
- looseness and moisture content of the soile0
- Direction
- more favourablee0
- Comparator
- conventional technologiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the looseness and moisture content of the soil using reduced tillage is more favourable than after using conventional technologies”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till produced lower corn yield and production elements than winter plough or disk ripper.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- no-tille0
- Outcome
- corn yield and production elementse0
- Direction
- behinde0
- Comparator
- winter plough or disk ripper cultivatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of no-till and shallow spring tillage are behind those of winter plough or disk ripper cultivation in corn yield and production elements”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow spring tillage produced lower corn yield and production elements than winter plough or disk ripper.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- shallow spring tillagee0
- Outcome
- corn yield and production elementse0
- Direction
- behinde0
- Comparator
- winter plough or disk ripper cultivatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of no-till and shallow spring tillage are behind those of winter plough or disk ripper cultivation in corn yield and production elements”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with simultaneous clearing and sowing best preserved soil moisture.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- ground clearing and sowing while simultaneously performing no-till methode0
- Outcome
- moisture content in the soile0
- Direction
- most favourablee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“To preserve moisture content in the soil, the ground clearing and sowing while simultaneously performing no-till method presents the most favourable results”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till yielded surplus soil moisture equivalent to 40 mm precipitation.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- no-till technologye0
- Outcome
- surplus moisturee0
- Value
- 40 mm precipitatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The surplus moisture gained using no-till technology is equal to 40 mm precipitation”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage method did not affect winter wheat yield.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- tillage methodse0
- Outcome
- plant yielde0
- Direction
- do not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regarding the yield of winter wheat we established that the tillage methods do not affect plant yield”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Disk ripper cultivation yielded 5.55 t/ha winter wheat.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- disk rippere0
- Outcome
- harvest resultse0
- Value
- 5.55e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both disk ripper and conventional disc cultivation showed nearly the same harvest results (5.55 or 5.5 t/ha)”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional disc cultivation yielded 5.5 t/ha winter wheat.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- conventional disc cultivatione0
- Outcome
- harvest resultse0
- Value
- 5.5 t/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both disk ripper and conventional disc cultivation showed nearly the same harvest results (5.55 or 5.5 t/ha)”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter plough and disk ripper had no significant difference in corn production.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- winter ploughe0
- Outcome
- productione0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- disk ripper technologye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant difference can be detected between the production of winter plough and disk ripper technology”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till yield was 9-10% below winter plough and disk ripper yields.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- no-till methode0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 9-10%e0
- Comparator
- previously mentioned technologiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although the yield achieved with the no-till method is less than with the previously mentioned technologies, the difference is only 9-10%”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow spring tillage produced the lowest yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- shallow spring tillagee0
- Outcome
- productione0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We received the lowest production at shallow spring tillage”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter tillage yielded 1.1 t/ha (13%) more maize than disk ripper.
- Treatment
- winter tillagee0
- Outcome
- yield of maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.1 t/ha (13%)e0
- Comparator
- disk ripper methode0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 1.1 t/ha (13%) difference in the yield of maize, between winter tillage and the disk ripper method, in this case the traditional method resulted in higher yield”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter tillage yielded 1.9-2.1 t/ha (23-25%) more maize than direct sowing and cultivator treatments.
- Treatment
- winter tillagee0
- Outcome
- yield of maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.9-2.1 t/ha (23-25%)e0
- Comparator
- direct sowing and cultivator treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In winter tillage, the yield of maize was 1.9-2.1 t/ha (23-25%) higher than in the case of direct sowing and cultivator treatments”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct sowing and cultivator treatment yields did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- direct sowinge0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- No significant differencee0
- Comparator
- cultivator treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant difference could be noted between the yields of direct sowing and cultivator treatments”
t0“corn”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 88 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
126 papers more in this group
See all 130 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.