Abstract
Climate warming has increased the frequency of droughts and excessive precipitation, adversely affecting crop growth, particularly under traditional intensive tillage. No-till improves crop tolerance to extreme events by reducing soil evaporation and improving soil structural stability to enhance soil water storage capacity and crop resistance, but long-term mono-no-till cakes the soil, reducing crop yield. Combining intensive tillage with no-till can compensate for some deficiencies arising from conventional tillage or single no-till. A three-year field experiment was conducted in wet (2020) and normal (2019 and 2021, where a drought event occurred in 2021) years to study the effect of tillage practices on summer maize productivity under different precipitation types. Treatments included conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT), ridge cultivation with no-tillage (RNT), and conventional tillage of winter wheat combined with no-tillage of summer maize (NC). Compared with NT, NC and RNT significantly reduced soil bulk density and increased soil porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer. Compared with CT, NC and RNT significantly improved aggregate stability, NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% in the dry season (P < 0.05), and NC and RNT significantly reduced lodging rate in the rainy season. Over the three years, NC and RNT maintained higher maize yields (NC: 10.3 t ha–1 and RNT: 10.0 t ha–1) than CT (9.2 t ha–1), and NC had significantly higher yield stability than CT. Meanwhile, NC and RNT had higher precipitation use efficiency (PUE; NC: 21.2 kg ha–1 mm–1, RNT: 20.7 kg ha–1 mm–1) than NT (20.1 kg ha–1 mm–1) or CT (19.1 kg ha–1 mm–1). In terms of combined productivity, NC and RNT provide a more suitable soil environment for crop growth and maintain higher yield than NT and CT. NC rotation is recommended as the optimal tillage system for sustainable crop production under semi - arid agricultural conditions. RNT can be extended to areas prone to flooding with abundant rainfall. These results offer a benchmark for future studies on regional maize production under climate change.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
NC reduced soil bulk density relative to NT in the 0–20 cm soil layer.
- Treatment
- NCe0
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with NT, NC and RNT significantly reduced soil bulk density and increased soil porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC increased soil porosity relative to NT in the 0–20 cm soil layer.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with NT, NC and RNT significantly reduced soil bulk density and increased soil porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT reduced soil bulk density relative to NT in the 0–20 cm soil layer.
- Treatment
- RNTe0
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with NT, NC and RNT significantly reduced soil bulk density and increased soil porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT increased soil porosity relative to NT in the 0–20 cm soil layer.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with NT, NC and RNT significantly reduced soil bulk density and increased soil porosity in the 0–20 cm soil layer.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC improved aggregate stability relative to CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CT, NC and RNT significantly improved aggregate stability, NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% in the dry season (P < 0.05), and NC and RNT significantly reduced lodging rate in the rainy season.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT improved aggregate stability relative to CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CT, NC and RNT significantly improved aggregate stability, NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% in the dry season (P < 0.05), and NC and RNT significantly reduced lodging rate in the rainy season.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% relative to CT in the dry season.
- Treatment
- NCe0
- Outcome
- available soil water storagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19.7%e0
- Qualifier
- dry seasone0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CT, NC and RNT significantly improved aggregate stability, NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% in the dry season (P < 0.05), and NC and RNT significantly reduced lodging rate in the rainy season.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC reduced lodging rate relative to CT in the rainy season.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CT, NC and RNT significantly improved aggregate stability, NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% in the dry season (P < 0.05), and NC and RNT significantly reduced lodging rate in the rainy season.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT reduced lodging rate relative to CT in the rainy season.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with CT, NC and RNT significantly improved aggregate stability, NC increased available soil water storage by 19.7% in the dry season (P < 0.05), and NC and RNT significantly reduced lodging rate in the rainy season.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC maintained higher maize yield than CT over three years (10.3 t ha–1 versus 9.2 t ha–1).
- Treatment
- NCe0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10.3 t ha–1e0
- Qualifier
- 9.2 t ha–1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the three years, NC and RNT maintained higher maize yields (NC: 10.3 t ha–1 and RNT: 10.0 t ha–1) than CT (9.2 t ha–1), and NC had significantly higher yield stability than CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT maintained higher maize yield than CT over three years (10.0 t ha–1 versus 9.2 t ha–1).
- Treatment
- RNTe0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10.0 t ha–1e0
- Qualifier
- 9.2 t ha–1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the three years, NC and RNT maintained higher maize yields (NC: 10.3 t ha–1 and RNT: 10.0 t ha–1) than CT (9.2 t ha–1), and NC had significantly higher yield stability than CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
NC had higher yield stability than CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the three years, NC and RNT maintained higher maize yields (NC: 10.3 t ha–1 and RNT: 10.0 t ha–1) than CT (9.2 t ha–1), and NC had significantly higher yield stability than CT.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC had higher precipitation use efficiency than NT or CT (21.2 kg ha–1 mm–1).
- Treatment
- NCe0
- Outcome
- precipitation use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 21.2 kg ha–1 mm–1e0
- Qualifier
- CT (19.1 kg ha–1 mm–1)e0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Meanwhile, NC and RNT had higher precipitation use efficiency (PUE; NC: 21.2 kg ha–1 mm–1, RNT: 20.7 kg ha–1 mm–1) than NT (20.1 kg ha–1 mm–1) or CT (19.1 kg ha–1 mm–1).”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT had higher precipitation use efficiency than NT or CT (20.7 kg ha–1 mm–1).
- Treatment
- RNTe0
- Outcome
- precipitation use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20.7 kg ha–1 mm–1e0
- Qualifier
- CT (19.1 kg ha–1 mm–1)e0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Meanwhile, NC and RNT had higher precipitation use efficiency (PUE; NC: 21.2 kg ha–1 mm–1, RNT: 20.7 kg ha–1 mm–1) than NT (20.1 kg ha–1 mm–1) or CT (19.1 kg ha–1 mm–1).”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
NC provided a more suitable soil environment for crop growth than NT and CT.
- Treatment
- NCe0
- Outcome
- more suitable soil environment for crop growthe0
- Direction
- more suitablee0
- Comparator
- NT and CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In terms of combined productivity, NC and RNT provide a more suitable soil environment for crop growth and maintain higher yield than NT and CT.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RNT provided a more suitable soil environment for crop growth than NT and CT.
- Treatment
- RNTe0
- Outcome
- more suitable soil environment for crop growthe0
- Direction
- more suitablee0
- Comparator
- NT and CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In terms of combined productivity, NC and RNT provide a more suitable soil environment for crop growth and maintain higher yield than NT and CT.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend NC rotation for sustainable crop production under semi-arid conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NC rotation is recommended as the optimal tillage system for sustainable crop production under semi - arid agricultural conditions.”
t0“rainfed maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend extending RNT to flood-prone areas with abundant rainfall.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RNT can be extended to areas prone to flooding with abundant rainfall.”
t0“rainfed maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.