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
Claim · model-written summary
No-till reduced average temporal corn yield variation.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0
- 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.
Verbatim
e0“We found that no-till reduced average temporal yield variation in corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops reduced average spatial corn yield variation.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- average spatial variatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cover crops reduced average spatial variation in corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTNC corn yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NTNCe0
- Outcome
- temporal yield volatilitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- CTNC groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
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.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTCC corn yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- NTCCe0
- Outcome
- temporal yield volatilitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- CTNC groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
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.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTNC soybean yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.
- Taxon
- soybeans
Glycine 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.

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.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTCC soybean yield had lower temporal volatility than CTNC under the beta method.
- Taxon
- soybeans
Glycine 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.

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.”
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.”
The same questions in other 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
- no effect
- 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.