Abstract
Abstract Reduced tillage is one of the options to combat land degradation problems. The study aims to examine the impacts of tillage practices on selected soil physicochemical properties, soil loss, and maize yield and yield components. Four treatments—zero, twice, and strip tillage—as well as farmers' practices, were set up in a randomized complete block design with five replications. Then, soil moisture, soil loss, and yield and yield components of maize data were collected. The findings show that, when compared to conventional tillage, conservation tillage improves soil moisture and decreases soil loss during and after crop development. The study found that implementing reduced, or zero tillage practices resulted in higher maize yields and long-term economic benefits for farmers compared to conventional and strip tillage practices. In addition, the current research demonstrated that, in comparison to strip tillage and conventional tillage, adopting reduced tillage and zero tillage increased maize yield and yield components with greater long-term economic benefits to farmers. The current findings also showed that adopting reduced tillage and zero tillage boosted maize yield and yield components, with higher economic benefits to farmers in the long run as compared to strip tillage and conventional tillage. Although zero tillage attributed to less grain yield, it resulted in higher economic benefits to farmers and saved 44.84% of soil loss relative to conventional tillage. The outcome of the economic evaluation unequivocally demonstrated that reduced tillage is the best approach, but zero tillage, strip tillage, and reduced tillage are all superior and advised for farmers. Hence, farmers can use either zero tillage or reduced tillage, depending on their investment capital. But to get considerable changes in soil and water balances, other soil physicochemical properties, and crop yield. Similar studies must be carried out on permanent field plots for longer than 2 years in the future.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage improved soil moisture relative to conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“conservation tillage improves soil moisture and decreases soil loss during and after crop development”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage decreased soil loss during and after crop development.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“conservation tillage improves soil moisture and decreases soil loss during and after crop development”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage produced higher maize yields than conventional and strip tillage.
- Treatment
- reducede0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional and strip tillage practicese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced, or zero tillage practices resulted in higher maize yields and long-term economic benefits for farmers compared to conventional and strip tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage produced higher maize yields than conventional and strip tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional and strip tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced, or zero tillage practices resulted in higher maize yields and long-term economic benefits for farmers compared to conventional and strip tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage gave farmers higher long-term economic benefits than conventional and strip tillage.
- Treatment
- reducede0
- Outcome
- long-term economic benefitse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional and strip tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced, or zero tillage practices resulted in higher maize yields and long-term economic benefits for farmers compared to conventional and strip tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage gave farmers higher long-term economic benefits than conventional and strip tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- long-term economic benefitse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional and strip tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced, or zero tillage practices resulted in higher maize yields and long-term economic benefits for farmers compared to conventional and strip tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage saved 44.84% of soil loss relative to conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil losse0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 44.84%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage attributed to less grain yield, it resulted in higher economic benefits to farmers and saved 44.84% of soil loss relative to conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage resulted in less grain yield.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage attributed to less grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers may use zero or reduced tillage depending on investment capital.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“farmers can use either zero tillage or reduced tillage, depending on their investment capital”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
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 · 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.