Paper · 2019 · Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

An analysis of yield variation under soil conservation practices

A.E. Anderson; W.A. Hammac; D.E. Stott; et al.

7
claims
7
verbatim quotes
12
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Much attention has been paid to the effects of multiple soil conservation and soil health practices on the mean yield of the subsequent crop. Much less research has focused on the variability of crop yields over time or space. Yield stability reported in standard deviation, mean absolute deviation, or coefficient of variation can be an important measure of risk for producers. Risk reduction has economic value, and understanding the effect of tillage and other soil conservation practices on yield risk is relevant to farm financial management and crop insurance risk assessment. We used data from test plots in a corn (Zea mays L.)–soybean (Glycine max L.) rotation, spanning from 2003 to 2011 to assess differences in yield stability over time and space. In this experiment, each plot was randomly assigned to a treatment of no-till with no cover crop (NTNC), no-till with an annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) cover crop (NTCC), or a control group using conventional tillage with no cover crop (CTNC). The statistical analysis made three relevant comparisons: (1) NTCC versus NTNC, (2) NTNC versus CTNC, and (3) NTCC versus CTNC. The analysis also included separating temporal and spatial variation using a time-first approach from the literature, followed by testing for differences between groups. We employed a standard deviation ratio test, Levene9s test, and coefficient of variation t-test. Additionally, analysis of temporal volatility was conducted using ordinary least squares regression and associated t-tests in a method similar to a stock beta, a technique commonly accepted in finance to measure the volatility of an investment. We propose this as a new method in analyzing the temporal volatility in crop yields. We found that no-till reduced average temporal yield variation in corn, and that cover crops reduced average spatial variation in corn. These results were robust over multiple statistical tests. Using the beta coefficient methodology proposed in this paper, we found in both corn and soybeans that NTNC and NTCC had lower temporal yield volatility relative to a benchmark yield from the CTNC group. However, the beta coefficients were, in most cases, not statistically significant. The results of this study suggest that both no-till and cover crops may help reduce yield risk for Midwestern farmers while reducing soil and nutrient loss.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till reduced average temporal corn yield variation.

Treatment
no-tille0
Outcome
average temporal yield variatione0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We found that no-till reduced average temporal yield variation in corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1740–1810 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crops reduced average spatial corn yield variation.

Treatment
cover cropse0
Outcome
average spatial variatione0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cover crops reduced average spatial variation in corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1821–1875 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTNC corn yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.

Treatment
NTNCe0
Outcome
temporal yield volatilitye0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
CTNC groupe0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in both corn and soybeans that NTNC and NTCC had lower temporal yield volatility relative to a benchmark yield from the CTNC group.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2007–2138 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTCC corn yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.

Treatment
NTCCe0
Outcome
temporal yield volatilitye0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
CTNC groupe0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in both corn and soybeans that NTNC and NTCC had lower temporal yield volatility relative to a benchmark yield from the CTNC group.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2007–2138 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTNC soybean yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.

Taxon
soybeansGlycine maxe0
Treatment
NTNCe0
Outcome
temporal yield volatilitye0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
CTNC groupe0

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

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in both corn and soybeans that NTNC and NTCC had lower temporal yield volatility relative to a benchmark yield from the CTNC group.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2007–2138 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTCC soybean yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.

Taxon
soybeansGlycine maxe0
Treatment
NTCCe0
Outcome
temporal yield volatilitye0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
CTNC groupe0

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

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in both corn and soybeans that NTNC and NTCC had lower temporal yield volatility relative to a benchmark yield from the CTNC group.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2007–2138 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Most beta coefficients were not statistically significant.

Outcome
beta coefficientse0

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“However, the beta coefficients were, in most cases, not statistically significant.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2139–2221 · show in text ↑

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

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

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

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.