Abstract
To make agricultural systems sustainable in terms of their greenness and efficiency, it is essential to optimize the tillage and fertilization practices. To assess the effect of tilling and fertilization practices in the wheat-maize cropping systems, we carried out a three-year field experiment designed to quantify the carbon footprint (CF), and energy efficiency of the cropping systems in the North China Plain. As the study parameters, we used four tillage practices (no tillage (NT), conventional tillage (CT), rotary tillage (RT) and subsoiling rotary tillage (SRT)), and two fertilizer regimes (inorganic fertilizer (IF), and hybrid fertilizer with organic and inorganic components (HF)). Our results indicated that the most prominent energy inputs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be ascribed to the use of fertilizers and fuel consumption. Assuming the same fertilization regime, ranking the tillage patterns with respect to the value of the crop yield, the profit, the CF, the energy use efficiency (EUE) or the energy productivity (EP) for either wheat or maize always gave the following result: SRT>RT>CT>NT. For the same tillage, the energy consumption associated with HF was higher than IF, but its GHG emissions and CF were lower while the yield and profit were better. In terms of the overall performance, tilling is more beneficial than NT, and reduced tillage (RT and SRT) are more beneficial than CT. The fertilization regime with the best overall performance was HF. Combining SRT with HF has significant potential for reducing CF and increasing EUE, improving the sustainability. Adopting measures promoting these optimizations can help overcome the challenges posed by lack of food security, energy crises and ecological stress.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizers were a prominent source of energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Taxon
- wheat–maize
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- use of fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- energy inputs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the most prominent energy inputs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be ascribed to the use of fertilizers”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Fuel consumption was a prominent source of energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- energy inputs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionse0
- Qualifier
- fuel consumptione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the most prominent energy inputs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could be ascribed to the use of fertilizers and fuel consumption”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
At a fixed fertilizer regime, crop yield ranked SRT above RT above CT above NT for wheat and maize.
- Taxon
- wheat or maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- tillage patternse0
- Outcome
- crop yielde0
- Direction
- SRT>RT>CT>NTe0
- Qualifier
- same fertilization regimee0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assuming the same fertilization regime, ranking the tillage patterns with respect to the value of the crop yield, the profit, the CF, the energy use efficiency (EUE) or the energy productivity (EP) for either wheat or maize always gave the following result: SRT>RT>CT>NT”
Claim · model-written summary
At a fixed fertilizer regime, profit ranked SRT above RT above CT above NT.
- Taxon
- wheat or maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- tillage patternse0
- Outcome
- profite0
- Direction
- SRT>RT>CT>NTe0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assuming the same fertilization regime, ranking the tillage patterns with respect to the value of the crop yield, the profit, the CF, the energy use efficiency (EUE) or the energy productivity (EP) for either wheat or maize always gave the following result: SRT>RT>CT>NT”
Claim · model-written summary
At a fixed fertilizer regime, carbon footprint ranked SRT above RT above CT above NT.
- Taxon
- wheat or maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- tillage patternse0
- Outcome
- CFe0
- Direction
- SRT>RT>CT>NTe0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assuming the same fertilization regime, ranking the tillage patterns with respect to the value of the crop yield, the profit, the CF, the energy use efficiency (EUE) or the energy productivity (EP) for either wheat or maize always gave the following result: SRT>RT>CT>NT”
Claim · model-written summary
At a fixed fertilizer regime, energy use efficiency ranked SRT above RT above CT above NT.
- Taxon
- wheat or maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- tillage patternse0
- Outcome
- energy use efficiency (EUE)e0
- Direction
- SRT>RT>CT>NTe0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assuming the same fertilization regime, ranking the tillage patterns with respect to the value of the crop yield, the profit, the CF, the energy use efficiency (EUE) or the energy productivity (EP) for either wheat or maize always gave the following result: SRT>RT>CT>NT”
Claim · model-written summary
At a fixed fertilizer regime, energy productivity ranked SRT above RT above CT above NT.
- Taxon
- wheat or maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- tillage patternse0
- Outcome
- energy productivity (EP)e0
- Direction
- SRT>RT>CT>NTe0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Assuming the same fertilization regime, ranking the tillage patterns with respect to the value of the crop yield, the profit, the CF, the energy use efficiency (EUE) or the energy productivity (EP) for either wheat or maize always gave the following result: SRT>RT>CT>NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid fertilizer had higher energy consumption than inorganic fertilizer at the same tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- HFe0
- Outcome
- energy consumptione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- IFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the same tillage, the energy consumption associated with HF was higher than IF”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid fertilizer had lower greenhouse gas emissions than inorganic fertilizer at the same tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- HFe1
- Outcome
- GHG emissionse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- IFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its GHG emissions and CF were lower”
e1“For the same tillage, the energy consumption associated with HF was higher than IF”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid fertilizer had lower carbon footprint than inorganic fertilizer.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its GHG emissions and CF were lower”
e1“For the same tillage, the energy consumption associated with HF was higher than IF”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid fertilizer gave better yield than inorganic fertilizer.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- HFe1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- IFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield and profit were better”
e1“For the same tillage, the energy consumption associated with HF was higher than IF”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid fertilizer gave better profit than inorganic fertilizer.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- HFe1
- Outcome
- profite0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- IFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield and profit were better”
e1“For the same tillage, the energy consumption associated with HF was higher than IF”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged tilling more beneficial overall than no tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- tilling is more beneficial than NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tilling is more beneficial than NT”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged reduced tillage more beneficial overall than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- reduced tillage (RT and SRT) are more beneficial than CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced tillage (RT and SRT) are more beneficial than CT”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged hybrid fertilizer the best overall fertilizer regime.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- best overall performance was HFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fertilization regime with the best overall performance was HF”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining SRT with HF has potential to reduce carbon footprint.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- reducing CFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combining SRT with HF has significant potential for reducing CF and increasing EUE”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining SRT with HF has potential to increase energy use efficiency.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- increasing EUEe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combining SRT with HF has significant potential for reducing CF and increasing EUE”
t0“wheat–maize cropping systems”
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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
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
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.