Abstract
Abstract A critical question is whether there are agricultural management practices that can attain the multiple management goals of increasing yields, preventing nutrient losses, and suppressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. No‐till and manure application methods, such as manure injection, can enhance nutrient retention, but both may also enhance emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), a powerful GHG. We assessed differences in soil N 2 O and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, nitrate and ammonium retention, and crop yield and protein content under combinations of vertical‐till, no‐till, manure injection, and manure broadcast without incorporation in a corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system. During the growing seasons of 2015–2017, GHG emissions and soil mineral nitrogen (N) were measured every other week or more frequently after management events. Crop yield and protein content were measured annually at harvest. No‐till reduced CO 2 emissions but had no impact on N 2 O emissions relative to vertical‐till. Manure injection increased N 2 O and CO 2 emissions, with the magnitude of this effect being greatest for 1 mo post‐application. Manure injection also increased soil ammonium and nitrate but did not increase yield or crop quality relative to broadcast application. Similarly, tillage did not affect crop yield or protein content. Despite the tradeoffs between mineral N retention and elevated GHG emissions, manure injection in no‐till systems benefits farmers by reducing soil carbon losses as CO 2 , retaining mineral N, and maintaining crop yields and quality.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
No-till reduced soil CO2 emissions relative to vertical-till.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐till reduced CO 2 emissions but had no impact on N 2 O emissions relative to vertical‐till.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till had no reported impact on soil N2O emissions relative to vertical-till.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐till reduced CO 2 emissions but had no impact on N 2 O emissions relative to vertical‐till.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure injection increased soil N2O and CO2 emissions, most strongly in the first month after application.
- Treatment
- Manure injectione0
- Outcome
- N 2 O and CO 2 emissionse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- greatest for 1 mo post‐applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Manure injection increased N 2 O and CO 2 emissions, with the magnitude of this effect being greatest for 1 mo post‐application.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure injection increased soil ammonium and nitrate relative to broadcast application.
- Treatment
- Manure injectione0
- Outcome
- soil ammonium and nitratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- broadcast applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Manure injection also increased soil ammonium and nitrate but did not increase yield or crop quality relative to broadcast application.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure injection did not increase yield or crop quality relative to broadcast application.
- Treatment
- Manure injectione0
- Outcome
- yield or crop qualitye0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
- Comparator
- broadcast applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Manure injection also increased soil ammonium and nitrate but did not increase yield or crop quality relative to broadcast application.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect crop yield or protein content.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, tillage did not affect crop yield or protein content.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that manure injection in no-till systems benefits farmers through lower soil carbon loss, mineral nitrogen retention, and maintained crop yields and quality.
- Outcome
- manure injection in no‐till systems benefits farmers by reducing soil carbon losses as CO 2 , retaining mineral N, and maintaining crop yields and qualitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“manure injection in no‐till systems benefits farmers by reducing soil carbon losses as CO 2 , retaining mineral N, and maintaining crop yields and quality.”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.) silage system”
The same questions in other papers
application · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
tillage · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →application · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →tillage · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →fertilization · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 papers →fertilization · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →application · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
157 papers more in this group
See all 161 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 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.