Abstract
Abstract No‐tillage (NT) (or zero‐tillage) has been widely used to mitigate the adverse effects caused by intensive tillage. However, the long‐term effectiveness of NT is highly dependent on agriculture field management, soil type, and climatic conditions. NT under different climatic condition fluctuations and soil conditions has not also been considered adequately in Asia. Furthermore, the high demand for food production in Asia requires a deeper understanding of the impact of NT on soil properties and crop production. Therefore, this meta‐analysis was conducted using 64 peer‐reviewed articles to evaluate the effects of NT on soil organic carbon (SOC), soil carbon storage, mean weight diameter (MWD), bulk density, water‐stable aggregates, water content, other soil chemical properties, and yield responses. Our results showed that NT significantly increased SOC content overall than conventional tillage (CT). Likewise, as observed at a 0–10 cm soil depth, SOC content significantly increased by 77.0% in NT compared to CT. Alternatively, although overall, NT favoured the accumulation of soil C by 53.2% than CT, and this difference was even more impressive at the 0–10 cm layer by 77.0% than CT. Moreover, overall NT significantly increased MWD, soil available P, and >2 mm aggregates than CT. In contrast, even though NT did not significantly decrease smaller than the 0.25 mm aggregates than CT in the 0–10 cm layer, NT increased exchangeable K by 81.0% than CT. Results also showed that while NT and CT had no significant effects on crop yield, NT slightly increased soybean and wheat yield, and CT increased rice and maize yield than NT. Based on these results, NT is proposed as a promising practice to enhance soil quality and is plausible to increase crop yield in Asia.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage significantly increased soil organic carbon versus conventional tillage overall.
- Taxon
- cropt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- SOC contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
Not reportedSetting
Verbatim
e0“NT significantly increased SOC content overall than conventional tillage (CT)”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased soil organic carbon at 0–10 cm by 77.0%.
Verbatim
e0“at a 0–10 cm soil depth, SOC content significantly increased by 77.0% in NT compared to CT”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased soil carbon accumulation overall by 53.2%.
Verbatim
e0“NT favoured the accumulation of soil C by 53.2% than CT”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage significantly increased mean weight diameter, available P and >2 mm aggregates.
Verbatim
e0“NT significantly increased MWD, soil available P, and >2 mm aggregates than CT”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage did not significantly decrease aggregates smaller than 0.25 mm at 0–10 cm.
Verbatim
e0“NT did not significantly decrease smaller than the 0.25 mm aggregates than CT in the 0–10 cm layer”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased exchangeable K by 81.0% versus conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“NT increased exchangeable K by 81.0% than CT”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage and conventional tillage had no significant overall crop yield difference.
Verbatim
e0“NT and CT had no significant effects on crop yield”
t0“crop”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage slightly increased soybean yield.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- soybean and wheat yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT slightly increased soybean and wheat yield”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage slightly increased wheat yield.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- soybean and wheat yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT slightly increased soybean and wheat yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage increased rice yield versus no-tillage.
Oryza sativaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT increased rice and maize yield than NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage increased maize yield versus no-tillage.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT increased rice and maize yield than NT”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose no-tillage to improve soil quality and possibly crop yield in Asia.
Verbatim
e0“NT is proposed as a promising practice to enhance soil quality and is plausible to increase crop yield in Asia”
t0“crop”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 100 in the opposite direction · 26 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 papers →tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
586 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 27 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
725 papers more in this group
See all 729 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.