Paper · 2002 · Agronomy Journal

Corn Yield as Affected by Liming and Tillage System on an Acid Brazilian Oxisol

Paulo R. Ernani; Cimelio Bayer; Leonardo Maestri

10
claims
18
verbatim quotes
44
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · other-oa

Abstract

Tillage system affects many soil parameters that may influence plant growth. This study evaluated the effect of liming on corn (Zea mays L.) yield and chemical characteristics of a Humic Hapludox (clayey, kaolinitic, goethitic, termic) under both conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) systems. Rates of dolomitic lime, from 0 to 18 t ha−1, were plowed into the soil in 1992 in southern Brazil; our study was conducted from 1996 through 1999. Lime rate was allocated to subplots, and tillage systems to main plots, in a split-plot design. Corn yield increased with liming in all years and was higher with CT than with NT in 2 of 3 yr. Averaged across years and systems, liming increased yield by 66%, which ranged from 4.4 to 7.8 t ha−1. The highest average yield (7.8 t ha−1) was obtained at pH 6.5; yields at pH 6.0 or 5.5 were 97 and 89% of the maximum, respectively. Liming reduced soil organic matter (SOM) in both systems, but nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Mn) remained above sufficiency on all treatments. Aluminum, pH, SOM, and other nutritional parameters did not differ between tillage systems, partly because limestone was initially incorporated in all plots and partly due to dilution effects in the plow layer because sampling was not stratified in small depths. Some soil restriction impaired by absence of plowing, probably increases in bulk density, offset the benefits of NT on plant growth and was responsible for the smaller yield in this tillage system compared with CT.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn yield increased with liming in all years.

Treatment
liminge0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
in all yearse0

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

“Corn yield increased with liming in all years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn yield was higher under conventional tillage than under no-tillage in 2 of 3 years.

Treatment
CTe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
in 2 of 3 yre0
Comparator
NTe0

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

“Corn yield increased with liming in all years and was higher with CT than with NT in 2 of 3 yr”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–640 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged across years and systems, liming increased corn yield by 66%, with yields ranging from 4.4 to 7.8 t ha-1.

Treatment
liminge0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
66%e0
Qualifier
ranged from 4.4 to 7.8 t ha−1e0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“Averaged across years and systems, liming increased yield by 66%, which ranged from 4.4 to 7.8 t ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 642–743 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest average corn yield, 7.8 t ha-1, was obtained at soil pH 6.5.

Outcome
highest average yielde0
Value
7.8 t ha−1e0
Qualifier
pH 6.5e0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest average yield (7.8 t ha−1) was obtained at pH 6.5”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 745–806 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn yield at pH 6.0 was 97% of the maximum yield.

Outcome
yieldse0
Value
97e0
Qualifier
pH 6.0e0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“yields at pH 6.0 or 5.5 were 97 and 89% of the maximum, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 808–876 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn yield at pH 5.5 was 89% of the maximum yield.

Outcome
yieldse0
Value
89%e0
Qualifier
5.5e0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“yields at pH 6.0 or 5.5 were 97 and 89% of the maximum, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 808–876 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming reduced soil organic matter in both tillage systems.

Treatment
Liminge0
Outcome
soil organic matter (SOM)e0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
in both systemse0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“Liming reduced soil organic matter (SOM) in both systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 878–934 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn) remained above sufficiency on all treatments.

Outcome
nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Mn)e0
Qualifier
remained above sufficiency on all treatmentse0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, and Mn) remained above sufficiency on all treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 940–1029 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Aluminum, pH, SOM and other nutritional parameters did not differ between tillage systems.

Treatment
tillage systemse0
Outcome
Aluminum, pH, SOM, and other nutritional parameterse0
Direction
did not differe0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“Aluminum, pH, SOM, and other nutritional parameters did not differ between tillage systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1031–1121 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attribute the smaller yield under no-tillage than conventional tillage to soil restriction from the absence of plowing, probably increased bulk density.

Treatment
absence of plowinge0
Outcome
smaller yielde0
Qualifier
probably increases in bulk densitye0

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

t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e0

“Some soil restriction impaired by absence of plowing, probably increases in bulk density, offset the benefits of NT on plant growth and was responsible for the smaller yield in this tillage system compared with CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1294–1507 · show in text ↑

tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

82 papers: 68 positive, 14 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 68 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

78 papers more in this group

See all 82 papers →

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

219 papers: 185 positive, 34 negative or no effect

184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

215 papers more in this group

See all 219 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. positive
  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.