Paper · 2021 · ORBi (University of Liège)

Reduced tillage increases grain yield through improving soil properties and water use efficiency

Shengping Li

15
claims
44
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · other-oa

Abstract

A primary challenge of our time is to attain high food security for a growing world population with reduced investment and ensuring environmental sustainability. Conservation tillage practices have received wide international attention to address this challenge because of their effect on soil physical properties and grain yield. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the relationships between soil physical properties and grain yield, especially for soil water repellency. The dynamic of soil physical properties during the growth period is also seldom taken into account to understand a suitable soil physical environment for plant growth. Moreover, although it is well known that conservation tillage practices could affect soil water repellency through hydrophobic substances and pore structure, most of the studies have only focused on hydrophobic substances due to the complexity of soil pore structure measurement and quantification. This results in limited knowledge about the relationship between soil pore structure and soil water repellency. In this study, we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China to study the seasonal changes of soil physical properties (e.g. bulk density, penetration resistance, porosity, mean weight diameter, least limiting water range, and plant available water). We also assessed how these soil physical properties influence grain yield, especially reveal the mechanism of how soil water repellency affects grain yield from the perspective of soil water availability. To better understand the effects of hydrophobic substances and pore structure on soil water repellency, another long-term experimental location was conducted in Gongzhuling, Jinlin Province, northeast China. The treatments were conventional tillage with residue removal (CT), reduced tillage with residue incorporation (RT), and no-tillage with residue mulching (NT) in both of the fields. The main results of this thesis are as follows: (1) Soil physical properties (e.g. bulk density, penetration resistance, pore size distribution, mean weight diameter, least limiting water range, and plant available water) were significantly influenced by tillage management, soil depth, and growth period (P < 0.05). At 0-5 cm layer, NT was the highest in soil bulk density on April 27th, but there was no significant difference among the three tillage management on July 7th, and NT was lower than RT and CT on September 10th. In addition, bulk density, porosity, S index, and mean weight diameter showed irregular and different relationships with grain yield during the growth period, especially there were no significant relationships between these soil physical properties and grain yield (P > 0.05). These results suggested that these soil physical properties were ineffective indicators for grain yield. Besides, the range of least limiting water range was narrower than plant available water during the growth period and more sensitive to assess soil water availability under the three treatments. NT significantly increased the lower limit of LLWR, which made it more difficult for root water uptake. Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower. Redundancy analysis further indicated that maize yield was mainly driven by a lower limit of LLWR and penetration resistance. (2) Soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon, both of which are hydrophobic substances, were higher in RT and NT treatments than in CT treatment. Microbial biomass carbon had a closer relationship with the water repellency index than soil organic carbon and more fully explained the impact of tillage on soil water repellency. The RT and NT treatments increased the porosity of pores that were 55-165 μm in diameter and it had a positive relationship with ethanol sorptivity and the water repellency index, respectively. However, there was no significant link with soil water repellency properties when the pores were greater than165 μm in diameter. The RT and NT treatments increased sorptivity by enhancing porosity and connectivity, and decreased water sorptivity by increasing soil surface area, which occurred because the area and possibility of contact between hydrophobic substances and soil water increased. (3) Both water sorptivity and water repellency index had effects on soil water availability (e.g. plant available water, least limiting water range, and soil water storage) that could affect plant growth. The effect of soil water repellency on soil water content became more obvious with the decrease in soil moisture following rainfall, which was also influenced by rainfall intensity. Although both water repellency index and water sorptivity can reflect the nature of soil water repellency, soil water sorptivity had a significant influence on grain yield, whereas water repellency index had no direct effect on grain yield. In addition, water sorptivity was the most favorable for grain yield improvement compared with soil organic carbon, mean weight diameter, penetration resistance, and total porosity. In conclusion, the thesis reveals the mechanism of how soil tillage management affects grain yield by changing soil physical properties. We found that grain yield was mainly driven by a lower limit of least limiting water range and penetration resistance. LLWR was an aggregative indicator including not only soil penetration resistance but also air porosity and soil water potential, which can better explain the change of grain yield under the long-term tillage management in the semi-arid region. Furthermore, the effect of conservation tillage on SWR is a result of the interactions between pore structure and hydrophobic substances. It is necessary to take into account both pore structure and hydrophobic substances when studying the impacts of SWR on soil processes. SWR also had the potential influence on grain yield by changing soil water availability and the effect of SWR on crop yield was worthy of further study under conservation tillage practices. The grain yield under RT treatment was highest by increasing water sorptivity, LLWR, and WUE. From this, we conclude that RT treatment is the most effective tillage practice compared to CT and NT treatments from the perspective of grain yield.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced tillage with residue incorporation (RT) gave higher corn yield than no-tillage with residue mulching (NT).

Treatment
reduced tillage with residue incorporation (RT)e1
Outcome
corn yielde2
Direction
highere2
Comparator
no-tillage with residue mulching (NT)e1
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e1

“The treatments were conventional tillage with residue removal (CT), reduced tillage with residue incorporation (RT), and no-tillage with residue mulching (NT) in both of the fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1815–1995 · show in text ↑
e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage management, soil depth and growth period significantly influenced soil physical properties (P < 0.05).

Treatment
tillage managemente4
Outcome
Soil physical propertiese4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“Soil physical properties (e.g. bulk density, penetration resistance, pore size distribution, mean weight diameter, least limiting water range, and plant available water) were significantly influenced by tillage management, soil depth, and growth period (P < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2049–2312 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bulk density, porosity, S index and mean weight diameter had no significant relationship with grain yield (P > 0.05).

Treatment
bulk density, porosity, S index, and mean weight diametere5
Outcome
relationships with grain yielde5
Qualifier
during the growth periode5
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedDirection

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e5

“In addition, bulk density, porosity, S index, and mean weight diameter showed irregular and different relationships with grain yield during the growth period, especially there were no significant relationships between these soil physical properties and grain yield (P > 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2525–2800 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage (NT) significantly increased the lower limit of least limiting water range (LLWR), which made root water uptake more difficult.

Treatment
NTe6
Outcome
lower limit of LLWRe6
Direction
increasede6
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e6

“NT significantly increased the lower limit of LLWR, which made it more difficult for root water uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3102–3204 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RT and NT treatments increased the porosity of pores 55-165 μm in diameter.

Treatment
RT and NT treatmentse7
Outcome
porosity of pores that were 55-165 μm in diametere7
Direction
increasede7
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e7

“The RT and NT treatments increased the porosity of pores that were 55-165 μm in diameter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3763–3851 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

RT treatment is the most effective tillage practice compared with CT and NT treatments from the perspective of grain yield.

Treatment
RT treatmente4
Outcome
grain yielde4
Comparator
CT and NT treatmentse4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“we conclude that RT treatment is the most effective tillage practice compared to CT and NT treatments from the perspective of grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 6231–6368 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain yield under RT was highest by increasing water sorptivity, LLWR and WUE.

Treatment
RT treatmente4
Outcome
grain yielde4
Qualifier
by increasing water sorptivity, LLWR, and WUEe4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“The grain yield under RT treatment was highest by increasing water sorptivity, LLWR, and WUE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 6126–6218 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil water sorptivity had a significant influence on grain yield.

Treatment
soil water sorptivitye4
Outcome
grain yielde4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedDirection

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“soil water sorptivity had a significant influence on grain yield, whereas water repellency index had no direct effect on grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4846–4978 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water repellency index had no direct effect on grain yield.

Treatment
water repellency indexe4
Outcome
grain yielde4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedDirection

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“soil water sorptivity had a significant influence on grain yield, whereas water repellency index had no direct effect on grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4846–4978 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water sorptivity was the most favorable for grain yield improvement compared with soil organic carbon, mean weight diameter, penetration resistance and total porosity.

Treatment
water sorptivitye4
Outcome
grain yield improvemente4
Direction
most favorablee4
Comparator
soil organic carbon, mean weight diameter, penetration resistance, and total porositye4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“water sorptivity was the most favorable for grain yield improvement compared with soil organic carbon, mean weight diameter, penetration resistance, and total porosity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4993–5160 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microbial biomass carbon had a closer relationship with the water repellency index than soil organic carbon did.

Compound
Microbial biomass carbone4
Outcome
water repellency indexe4
Comparator
soil organic carbone4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedDirection

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“Microbial biomass carbon had a closer relationship with the water repellency index than soil organic carbon and more fully explained the impact of tillage on soil water repellency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3582–3761 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon were higher in RT and NT treatments than in CT treatment.

Treatment
RT and NT treatmentse4
Outcome
Soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbone4
Direction
highere4
Comparator
CT treatmente4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“Soil organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon, both of which are hydrophobic substances, were higher in RT and NT treatments than in CT treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3432–3580 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize yield was mainly driven by a lower limit of LLWR and penetration resistance.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse2
Treatment
lower limit of LLWR and penetration resistancee2
Outcome
maize yielde2
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedDirection

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e2

“Redundancy analysis further indicated that maize yield was mainly driven by a lower limit of LLWR and penetration resistance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3302–3426 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both water sorptivity and water repellency index had effects on soil water availability.

Treatment
water sorptivity and water repellency indexe4
Outcome
soil water availabilitye4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

Not reportedDirection

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“Both water sorptivity and water repellency index had effects on soil water availability”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4356–4443 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The effect of soil water repellency on soil water content became more obvious as soil moisture decreased after rainfall.

Treatment
soil water repellencye4
Outcome
soil water contente4
Direction
more obviouse4
Setting
Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern Chinae3

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

e2

“Hence, RT presented higher corn yield compared to NT, even if the water content remained lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3206–3300 · show in text ↑
e3

“we used a long-term field experiment located at the Dryland Farming Experimental Station in Shouyang, Shanxi Province, in northern China”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1211 · show in text ↑
e4

“The effect of soil water repellency on soil water content became more obvious with the decrease in soil moisture following rainfall”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4557–4688 · show in text ↑

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

373 papers: 330 positive, 43 negative or no effect

329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

369 papers more in this group

See all 373 papers →

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. negative
  3. no effect

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.