Abstract
Abstract Within the last four decades, widespread transition to no‐till corn ( Zea mays L.) and soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production in Pennsylvania has improved soil conservation and soil quality but can result in residue and pest management challenges. To effectively manage residue in no‐till cropping systems, some growers have adopted vertical tillage, a residue management practice characterized by cutting and incorporating crop residue within the top 5–10 cm of soil. Despite few studies documenting effects on crop production and soil conservation, vertical tillage has become widespread. Replicated on‐farm trials were conducted over a 2‐year period in 2021–2022 to improve grower and consultant decision‐making regarding the role of vertical tillage relative to continuous no‐till on southeast Pennsylvania farms located within the environmentally sensitive Chesapeake Bay Watershed. We assessed the effects of vertical tillage on corn residue cover, winter annual weed abundance, slug damage, and soybean performance in 40 paired strip trials comparing spring vertical tillage to no‐till using three different vertical tillage tools used by farmer cooperators. Vertical tillage equipment type is a driver of variation in changes to surface residue cover. Baseline surface residue cover was similar among no‐till strips, but a greater proportion (32%) of strips had mean surface residue cover levels below a 60% conservation program compliance threshold when a Kuhn‐Krause Excelerator was used. Relative to no‐till, vertical tillage resulted in a 50% reduction in winter annual weed cover, a 24% reduction in slug damage, and no significant differences in soybean stand establishment or grain yield.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Vertical tillage equipment type was associated with variation in surface residue cover change.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse1 - Treatment
- Vertical tillage equipment typee0
- Outcome
- changes to surface residue covere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Vertical tillage equipment type is a driver of variation in changes to surface residue cover.”
e1“no‐till corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
With the Kuhn-Krause Excelerator, 32% of strips fell below the 60% residue-cover compliance threshold.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Kuhn‐Krause Exceleratore0
- Outcome
- surface residue cover levelse0
- Direction
- belowe0
- Value
- 32%e0
- Qualifier
- 60% conservation program compliance thresholde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a greater proportion (32%) of strips had mean surface residue cover levels below a 60% conservation program compliance threshold when a Kuhn‐Krause Excelerator was used.”
e1“no‐till corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative to no-till, vertical tillage reduced winter annual weed cover by 50%.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- vertical tillagee0
- Interactor
- winter annual weede0weed
- Outcome
- winter annual weed covere0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Comparator
- no‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to no‐till, vertical tillage resulted in a 50% reduction in winter annual weed cover, a 24% reduction in slug damage, and no significant differences in soybean stand establishment or grain yield.”
e1“soybean performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative to no-till, vertical tillage reduced slug damage by 24%.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- vertical tillagee0
- Interactor
- sluge0pest
- Outcome
- slug damagee0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Comparator
- no‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to no‐till, vertical tillage resulted in a 50% reduction in winter annual weed cover, a 24% reduction in slug damage, and no significant differences in soybean stand establishment or grain yield.”
e1“soybean performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative to no-till, vertical tillage showed no significant difference in soybean stand establishment.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- vertical tillagee0
- Outcome
- soybean stand establishmente0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- no‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to no‐till, vertical tillage resulted in a 50% reduction in winter annual weed cover, a 24% reduction in slug damage, and no significant differences in soybean stand establishment or grain yield.”
e1“soybean performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative to no-till, vertical tillage showed no significant difference in grain yield.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- vertical tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- no‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative to no‐till, vertical tillage resulted in a 50% reduction in winter annual weed cover, a 24% reduction in slug damage, and no significant differences in soybean stand establishment or grain yield.”
e1“soybean performance”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 papers →tillage · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →tillage · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 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.