Abstract
From 1996 to 1998 five different tillage systems were compared in maize (Zea mays L.) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production on one experimental field (silty loam - Albic Luvisol) located in north-west Slavonia, Croatia. The compared tillage systems were as follows: conventional tillage (CT), reduced conventional tillage (RT), conservation tillage I (CP), conservation tillage II (CM), no-tillage system (NT). The aim of the research was to determine the influence of those tillage systems on the energy and labour requirement, and on the yield of the maize and of the winter wheat. Comparing the energy requirement to CT system, RT system required 16.1% less, CP system 26.9% less, CM system 40.8% less, while NT system required even 85.1% less energy per hectare. The labour requirement showed that RT system saved 16.4%, while CP system required 20.5% less, CM system 39.5% less labour respectively. NT system saved 82.1% of labour in comparison to CT system. The first year greatest maize yield of 7.78 Mg ha-1 was achieved with CT system, while other systems in comparison to CT system, except RT, achieved not significantly lower yields. The second year greatest winter wheat yield of 5.89 Mg ha-1 achieved CM system, while other systems in comparison to CM, except RT, achieved not significantly lower yields.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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
The RT tillage system required 16.1% less energy than the CT system.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheat
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- RT systeme1
- Outcome
- energy requiremente1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 16.1%e1
- Comparator
- CT systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e1“Comparing the energy requirement to CT system, RT system required 16.1% less, CP system 26.9% less, CM system 40.8% less, while NT system required even 85.1% less energy per hectare”
Claim · model-written summary
The CP tillage system required 26.9% less energy than the CT system.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- CP systeme1
- Outcome
- energy requiremente1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 26.9%e1
- Comparator
- CT systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e1“Comparing the energy requirement to CT system, RT system required 16.1% less, CP system 26.9% less, CM system 40.8% less, while NT system required even 85.1% less energy per hectare”
Claim · model-written summary
The CM tillage system required 40.8% less energy than the CT system.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- CM systeme1
- Outcome
- energy requiremente1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 40.8%e1
- Comparator
- CT systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e1“Comparing the energy requirement to CT system, RT system required 16.1% less, CP system 26.9% less, CM system 40.8% less, while NT system required even 85.1% less energy per hectare”
Claim · model-written summary
The NT tillage system required 85.1% less energy than the CT system.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- NT systeme1
- Outcome
- energy requiremente1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 85.1%e1
- Comparator
- CT systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e1“Comparing the energy requirement to CT system, RT system required 16.1% less, CP system 26.9% less, CM system 40.8% less, while NT system required even 85.1% less energy per hectare”
Claim · model-written summary
The RT tillage system saved 16.4% of labour requirement.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- RT systeme2
- Outcome
- labour requiremente2
- Direction
- savede2
- Value
- 16.4%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e2“The labour requirement showed that RT system saved 16.4%, while CP system required 20.5% less, CM system 39.5% less labour respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The CP tillage system required 20.5% less labour.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- CP systeme2
- Outcome
- labour requiremente2
- Direction
- lesse2
- Value
- 20.5%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e2“The labour requirement showed that RT system saved 16.4%, while CP system required 20.5% less, CM system 39.5% less labour respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The CM tillage system required 39.5% less labour.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- CM systeme2
- Outcome
- labour requiremente2
- Direction
- lesse2
- Value
- 39.5%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e2“The labour requirement showed that RT system saved 16.4%, while CP system required 20.5% less, CM system 39.5% less labour respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The NT tillage system saved 82.1% of labour compared with the CT system.
- Taxon
- Maize and winter wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- NT systeme3
- Outcome
- laboure3
- Direction
- savede3
- Value
- 82.1%e3
- Comparator
- CT systeme3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e3“NT system saved 82.1% of labour in comparison to CT system”
Claim · model-written summary
In the first year, maize yield was greatest under the CT system (7.78 Mg/ha).
- Treatment
- CT systeme4
- Outcome
- maize yielde4
- Direction
- greateste4
- Value
- 7.78 Mg ha-1e4
- Comparator
- other systemse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e4“The first year greatest maize yield of 7.78 Mg ha-1 was achieved with CT system, while other systems in comparison to CT system”
Claim · model-written summary
In the first year, the other tillage systems, except RT, did not have significantly lower maize yields than the CT system.
- Treatment
- other systemse5
- Outcome
- yieldse5
- Direction
- not significantly lowere5
- Qualifier
- except RTe5
- Comparator
- CT systeme5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e5“other systems in comparison to CT system, except RT, achieved not significantly lower yields”
Claim · model-written summary
In the second year, winter wheat yield was greatest under the CM system (5.89 Mg/ha).
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- CM systeme6
- Outcome
- winter wheat yielde6
- Direction
- greateste6
- Value
- 5.89 Mg ha-1e6
- Comparator
- other systemse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e6“The second year greatest winter wheat yield of 5.89 Mg ha-1 achieved CM system, while other systems in comparison to CM, except RT, achieved not significantly lower yields”
Claim · model-written summary
In the second year, the other tillage systems, except RT, did not have significantly lower winter wheat yields than the CM system.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- other systemse6
- Outcome
- yieldse6
- Direction
- not significantly lowere6
- Qualifier
- except RTe6
- Comparator
- CMe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize and winter wheat production”
e6“The second year greatest winter wheat yield of 5.89 Mg ha-1 achieved CM system, while other systems in comparison to CM, except RT, achieved not significantly lower yields”
The same questions in other 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
- no effect
- negative
- 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.