Paper · 2022 · Sustainability

Reducing Tillage Affects Long-Term Yields but Not Grain Quality of Maize, Soybeans, Oats, and Wheat Produced in Three Contrasting Farming Systems

Kirsten Ann Pearsons; Emmanuel Chiwo Omondi; Brad J. Heins; et al.

10
claims
12
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Reducing tillage has been widely promoted to reduce soil erosion, maintain soil health, and sustain long-term food production. The effects of reducing tillage on crop nutritional quality in organic and conventional systems, however, has not been widely explored. One possible driver of crop nutritional quality might be the changing soil nitrogen (N) availability associated with reduced tillage in various management systems. To test how reducing tillage affects crop nutritional quality under contrasting conventional and organic farming systems with varied N inputs, we measured nutritional quality (protein, fat, starch, ash, net energy, total digestible nutrients, and concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P, and S) of maize, wheat, oats, and soybeans harvested from a long-term trial comprised of three farming systems under two tillage regimes: a conventional grain system (CNV); a low-input organic grain system (LEG); and an organic, manure-based grain + forage system (MNR) under conventional full-tillage (FT) and reduced-till (RT) management. Although maize and wheat yields were 10–13% lower under RT management, grain quality metrics including protein, fat, starch, energy, and mineral concentrations were not significantly affected by reducing tillage. Differences in nutrient quality were more marked between farming systems: protein levels in maize were highest in the MNR system (8.1%); protein levels in soybeans were highest in the LEG system (40.4%); levels of protein (12.9%), ash (2.0%), and sulfur (1430 ppm) in wheat were highest in the CNV system, and oat quality was largely consistent between the LEG and MNR systems. As grain quality did not significantly respond to reducing tillage, other management decisions that affect nutrient availability appear to have a greater effect on nutrient 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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced tillage lowered maize yield by 10–13%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
RT managemente0
Outcome
maize and wheat yieldse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
10–13%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“Although maize and wheat yields were 10–13% lower under RT management”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1047–1116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced tillage lowered wheat yield by 10–13%.

Treatment
RT managemente0
Outcome
maize and wheat yieldse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
10–13%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Although maize and wheat yields were 10–13% lower under RT management”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1047–1116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing tillage did not significantly affect grain protein, fat, starch, energy, or mineral concentrations.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
reducing tillagee0
Outcome
grain quality metrics including protein, fat, starch, energy, and mineral concentrationse0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“grain quality metrics including protein, fat, starch, energy, and mineral concentrations were not significantly affected by reducing tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1118–1258 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize protein was highest in MNR at 8.1%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Outcome
protein levelse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
8.1%e0
Setting
MNR systeme0

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

e0

“protein levels in maize were highest in the MNR system (8.1%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1334–1395 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean protein was highest in LEG at 40.4%.

Taxon
soybeansGlycine maxe0
Outcome
protein levelse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
40.4%e0
Setting
LEG systeme0

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

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“protein levels in soybeans were highest in the LEG system (40.4%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1397–1462 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat protein was highest in CNV at 12.9%.

Outcome
proteine0
Direction
higheste0
Value
12.9%e0
Setting
CNV systeme0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“levels of protein (12.9%), ash (2.0%), and sulfur (1430 ppm) in wheat were highest in the CNV system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1464–1564 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat ash was highest in CNV at 2.0%.

Outcome
ashe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.0%e0
Setting
CNV systeme0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“levels of protein (12.9%), ash (2.0%), and sulfur (1430 ppm) in wheat were highest in the CNV system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1464–1564 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat sulfur was highest in CNV at 1430 ppm.

Outcome
sulfure0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1430 ppme0
Setting
CNV systeme0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“levels of protein (12.9%), ash (2.0%), and sulfur (1430 ppm) in wheat were highest in the CNV system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1464–1564 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Oat quality was largely consistent between LEG and MNR.

Outcome
oat qualitye0
Comparator
LEG and MNR systemse0

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

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“oat quality was largely consistent between the LEG and MNR systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1570–1636 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors infer other management decisions affecting nutrient availability have greater effects on nutrient quality than reduced tillage.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Outcome
other management decisions that affect nutrient availabilitye0

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

e0

“other management decisions that affect nutrient availability appear to have a greater effect on nutrient quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1706–1818 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑

tillage · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 22 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 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.